UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (32) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: FoolinGrapeApe Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1963283  
Subject: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 8:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I can't see this ever happening, but if it does I'll be sure to max out our 401K contributions ASAP. I should probably do that anyway.

http://www.boston.com/business/blog/economy_equity/2012/11/t...

So here’s the deal the White House should offer Boehner to help avoid the fiscal cliff.

(1) President Obama and the Congress should agree to temporarily raise the maximum marginal tax rate for those in the top 5 percent of all earners from 35 percent to 50 percent. This would be equal to the maximum rate in 1985 when Ronald Reagan was in the White House.

(2) Half of all the additional revenue garnered from this increase in the top tax bracket should be set aside to reduce the size of the federal deficit.

(3) The other half should be transferred as immediate tax rebates to households in the bottom three income quintiles. Nearly 93 percent of these dollars will go into the spending stream.

(4) This increase in the maximum tax rate on the richest families in the nation and the tax rebates for most others should remain in effect until the unemployment rate falls below 6 percent. Cutting the higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy when the economy is booming again will shift incomes to high savers who will help spur investment when new production capacity will be needed.



Grape
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 99lashes Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837731 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 10:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
India, here we come.

99

Print the post Back To Top
Author: schvitzing Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837738 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 10:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I have no idea if this is true.

However, setting aside the the political caterwalling [which is, nevertheless, sure to come], there is one economic fact that should be considered: The marginal propensity to consume is greater in the lowest income quantiles than it is in the highest quantiles. Give poorer people more to spend and they will spend it. The rich will not spend nearly as much of the same amount of money, if retained. If someone doesn't have sufficient food, clothing or other staples of life, the extra funds will go toward acquiring those commodities. Such expendiiures are inherently stimulative economically.

Schvitz

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolinGrapeApe Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837740 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 10:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Give poorer people more to spend and they will spend it.

Yes, but you could also spend it directly such as infrastructure improvements. Which is more likely to help the economy?


Grape

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837746 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 11:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
India, here we come.

99
___________________

Good call, I can not imagine anyone more comfortable with a caste system than Barrack Obama

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 99lashes Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837748 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 11:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Give poorer people more to spend and they will spend it.

Doritos, Colt 45 and twinkies.,..er, strike that...Butterfingers, don't exactly help the economy. But with that kind of spending we help them with, they will certainly need Obamacare down the line.

Choices.

99

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837751 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 11:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Give poorer people more to spend and they will spend it.

__________________

Give richer people more and just demand they spend it, and they will spend it too

Still a really stupid idea, but they will spend it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 99lashes Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837754 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 11:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
On second thought it is more like the food stamp program,now larger than ever before. Lots of votes there.

The exception is it is the food stamp program, without the stamps, flat out money transfer just for providing your vote.

99

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BlueGrits Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837760 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 12:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
lows: Good call, I can not imagine anyone more comfortable with a caste system than Barrack Obama

Perhaps you can imagine who coined the terms "job creators" or "the 47%" as well as the phrase "takers, not makers."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BlueGrits Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837761 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 12:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Give richer people more and just demand they spend it, and they will spend it too

But not necessarily here or in a way beneficial to the U.S. economy which, after all, would be the point...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jerryab Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837768 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 12:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
On second thought it is more like the food stamp program,now larger than ever before. Lots of votes there.

Funny how you never mention WHEN the Food Stamp program began its climb.... Or is it just yet another "inconvenient truth"?

http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Per...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jerryab Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837770 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 12:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
(1) President Obama and the Congress should agree to temporarily raise the maximum marginal tax rate for those in the top 5 percent of all earners from 35 percent to 50 percent. This would be equal to the maximum rate in 1985 when Ronald Reagan was in the White House.

Make in permanent, not temporary.

(2) Half of all the additional revenue garnered from this increase in the top tax bracket should be set aside to reduce the size of the federal deficit.

(3) The other half should be transferred as immediate tax rebates to households in the bottom three income quintiles. Nearly 93 percent of these dollars will go into the spending stream.


Provide EXTRA tax benefits (credits? deductions?) ONLY to those who pay those higher rates for job creation in the US. So, if the person is NOT paying the "extra" tex, they don't get the "extra" deduction because they did NOT create the job because they were wealthy (they were POOR).

Which catches conservatives in a nifty Catch-22.

Because the claim is "the wealthy" create lots of jobs. So, with this tax incentive in place for creating and sustaining NEW, ADDITIONAL jobs, the wealthy will create a LOT of new job in the US--which will drive their ACTUAL taxes paid down to the lowest levels. Or isn't that something the conservatives actually want tested? After all, the IRS does keep those types of records once they are part of the law. LOL !!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 99lashes Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837772 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 12:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The time is less of a factor than the circumstances. People getting older, folks care less, less motivation-drive-ambition, nanny state where someone else will take care of me...etc.

That all kicked in, illegals coming in in increasing numbers with no way to enter a higher education job market. The second/third generations of those and endemic families with lazy kids. I know I got mine!

Point your finger at the current politicians who are not acting to reverse that. Voting for those to continue to feed and promote that dependancy in order to keep the vote, well that is a factor too. Like someone currently in office, IMO!

Little shop of horrors, "Feed me now human"! And it is growing.

99

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837774 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 12:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
This is the most ridiculous argument I have seen in a very long long time. The only effect this will have is a much more complicated tax form to fill out. No positive improvement in economic growth.

The new tax revenue after the first year will be minimal. Remember the 80/20 rule. Today we are 16%. At best we have another 4% and raising taxes is no guarantee of hire tax revenue. So, all you are doing is playing class warfare without any benefit.

Penalizing people for not creating jobs is plain DUMB and will NOT work.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837779 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 1:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yes, but you could also spend it directly such as infrastructure improvements. Which is more likely to help the economy?

That's a real good question. I'll bet the answer is a bit of a toss-up. I happen to favor direct investment in infrastructure since I'm in that industry, and at least that way some of the benefit is more directly "redistributed" back to the owners and major shareholders of the companies who are impacted by the higher tax rates.

Maybe go 50% toward deficit reduction, 25% direct investment, and 25% to lower quintiles.

BTW, the modified tax structure should apply to all income in that bracket, including cap gains. And the carried interest deduction should be eradicated. I'm not opposed to setting limits on deductions, either.

While this may not directly stop the bleeding (we need spending cuts for that) at least it's moving revenue to where it gives the economy a fighting chance to heal itself.

Let me emphasize that any plan like this needs to be accompanied by commensurate cuts in spending to ultimately be effective. But enacting a tax rate increase is a heck of a lot more straightforward than figuring out where to reform and/or cut - that's going to take some time.

I like this plan.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837781 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 1:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"
While this may not directly stop the bleeding (we need spending cuts for that) at least it's moving revenue to where it gives the economy a fighting chance to heal itself"

This statement is proof positive that this poster has no clue about fiscal policy and the economy. LOL

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837785 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 1:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
This statement is proof positive that this poster has no clue about fiscal policy and the economy. LOL

The board sped has spoken.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837787 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 2:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"The board sped has spoken. "

The truth hurts and all you are left with is name calling.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837800 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 2:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What a dumb idea. All it does is further tilt the taxes paid - already borne heavily by the higher brackets - even further out of whack.

It's a wonderful idea if you're a democrat, though. You've made the effective tax rate zero for a bunch more people (whose rebates will drop their rates to nothing) and driven it negative for a bunch more people (who weren't paying anything anyway).

Macroeconomically this doesn't do much. Why? All it does is shift consumption from one end of taxpayers to the other. If anything it reduces the incentive to earn more money. Bottom line: you're taking cash that could have gone into the economy from 1 guy and giving it to another guy...who will put it into the economy in a slightly different way.

It never ceases to amaze me how little grasp liberals have over the basics.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolinGrapeApe Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837810 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 2:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'll bet the answer is a bit of a toss-up. I happen to favor direct investment in infrastructure since I'm in that industry, and at least that way some of the benefit is more directly "redistributed" back to the owners and major shareholders of the companies who are impacted by the higher tax rates.

There are infrastructure projects that I believe can help with the economy. For instance, the widening of Rt 93 in NH from the MA border up to Manchester can provide better access to southern NH for businesses who which to locate there. I mentioned expanding natural gas infrastructure before. This would have a two fold effect of direct employment (excavation, pipe laying, etc) and providing a cheaper source of energy to home and business owners (more money in their pockets to spend).

Maybe go 50% toward deficit reduction, 25% direct investment, and 25% to lower quintiles.

Taxing the upper quintile and transferring that money to the lowest quintile would be politically difficult. I would mot favor that because it would remove motivation for someone in a lower quintile to move up. Part of the problem with welfare, at least prior to the Clinton era reform, was that it was designed to keep you dependent. I'd much rather see the money invested in infrastructure which would provide jobs and opportunity to the lower quintile to improve their standing. It also addresses a long standing issue.

Let me emphasize that any plan like this needs to be accompanied by commensurate cuts in spending to ultimately be effective.

Agreed. The cuts need to come from the largest expenditures, military and entitlements, otherwise you're not approaching it in a serious manner if you think discretionary spending will get you there.


Grape

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jerryab Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837877 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 6:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
This is the most ridiculous argument I have seen in a very long long time. The only effect this will have is a much more complicated tax form to fill out. No positive improvement in economic growth.

Given the above statement by you, you have formally acknowledged the wealthy do NOT create a lot jobs in the US economy. Raising their taxes will help reduce the deficit with no real impact on job creation.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837946 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 11:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There are infrastructure projects that I believe can help with the economy. For instance, the widening of Rt 93 in NH from the MA border up to Manchester can provide better access to southern NH for businesses who which to locate there. I mentioned expanding natural gas infrastructure before. This would have a two fold effect of direct employment (excavation, pipe laying, etc) and providing a cheaper source of energy to home and business owners (more money in their pockets to spend).

Yup. Stuff like that. Good place to put our money.


Taxing the upper quintile and transferring that money to the lowest quintile would be politically difficult. I would mot favor that because it would remove motivation for someone in a lower quintile to move up. Part of the problem with welfare, at least prior to the Clinton era reform, was that it was designed to keep you dependent. I'd much rather see the money invested in infrastructure which would provide jobs and opportunity to the lower quintile to improve their standing. It also addresses a long standing issue.

Just to be clear I'm not at all in favor of a direct transfer of money between quintiles, especially not in the tax code. Speaking directly to income taxes that would involve a tax penalty in higher brackets converting to lower liability in the lower brackets, which comes out to a refund for those with little or no tax liability to begin with. "Politically difficult" doesn't begin to describe it.

Nor am I at all in favor of encouraging dependency. In fact I'd argue that any "redistribution" of increased rates the top quintile should take the form of job training and placement - maybe even compulsory. But the jobs need to be there to make something like that work.


Agreed. The cuts need to come from the largest expenditures, military and entitlements, otherwise you're not approaching it in a serious manner if you think discretionary spending will get you there.

Entitlement reform is a must. There is also room for reform in discretionary spending but not where the Republican congress seems to be focusing on. Rather than Planned Parenthood and PBS we need to look at misguided attempts at "market making" in the form of subsidies to industries that are already massively profitable.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837948 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/17/2012 11:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The truth hurts and all you are left with is name calling.

Just once I'd like to see you contribute something to the conversation other than one-line personal retorts. Until then, learn to deal with the fact that the lack of respect you show to others is simply going to be met in kind.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: crassfool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837968 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/18/2012 12:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
lowstudent says

... I can not imagine anyone more comfortable with a caste system than Barrack Obama

I love you lowstudent, even if you can't spell the name of the President of the U.S.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolinGrapeApe Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837988 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/18/2012 7:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Nor am I at all in favor of encouraging dependency. In fact I'd argue that any "redistribution" of increased rates the top quintile should take the form of job training and placement - maybe even compulsory. But the jobs need to be there to make something like that work.

Better yet, how about targeted training. There are something on the magnitude of 3 million unfilled jobs because workers don't have the skills to fill them. Work with the employers and find out what skills are needed then offer training around those areas along with job placement once that training is complete. This could work for welfare and unemployment. Skills are relevant. People are removed from the government dole increasing the tax base while reducing spending. Unemployment gets addressed. Consumption would increase with the newly employed creating a positive feedback loop to drive increased employment.


Grape

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837990 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/18/2012 7:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Better yet, how about targeted training. There are something on the magnitude of 3 million unfilled jobs because workers don't have the skills to fill them. Work with the employers and find out what skills are needed then offer training around those areas along with job placement once that training is complete. This could work for welfare and unemployment. Skills are relevant. People are removed from the government dole increasing the tax base while reducing spending. Unemployment gets addressed. Consumption would increase with the newly employed creating a positive feedback loop to drive increased employment.

_______________________

IF we have to throw money away here, why not let businesses direct where it is thrown?

Set up a way for businesses with opening to use government money for targeted training. Let a market develop for that money.

Why are we randomly training people for jobs that may or may not exist? Let the businesses drive it. All the positions you are trying to fill will end up filled if education was the problem, the correct folks will be trained as the businesses will chose them, and a smaller entrenched bureaucracy will be created to give this money away and be exploited. Training programs are one of the great wastes of money that exist today.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolinGrapeApe Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837991 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/18/2012 8:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
IF we have to throw money away here, why not let businesses direct where it is thrown?

Set up a way for businesses with opening to use government money for targeted training. Let a market develop for that money.


I don't see that money as "throw away". We want safety nets to be transitional do we not? Training and job placement would help with that. I don't see much difference in what we're saying regarding business. Perhaps there could be some sort of interview process first so that companies can commit to hiring Jane Doe once she completes her training.

Why are we randomly training people for jobs that may or may not exist? Let the businesses drive it.

How is targeted training random? And how is business cut out of the process if you're working with them to develop that targeted training?


Grape

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1837995 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/18/2012 8:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't see that money as "throw away". We want safety nets to be transitional do we not? Training and job placement would help with that. I don't see much difference in what we're saying regarding business. Perhaps there could be some sort of interview process first so that companies can commit to hiring Jane Doe once she completes her training.
___________________

The question is has it?

I can not speak for everywhere, and I can not say there are zero successes. but mostly it has been a gross waste of money and resources creating skills that are essentially at such a low level as to be only creating competition for jobs that are not hard to fill anyway

Why have a government function to train, that has an interest in giving skill X? Let the demand be the driver for the skill.

We do not disagree that there is a role potentially for government to assist the dislocated. We do disagree in how they would address that. That disagreement is more important IMO than what we agree on. For again IMO, in delivering this as government traditionally has it is worse than doing nothing.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolinGrapeApe Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1838019 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/18/2012 10:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why have a government function to train, that has an interest in giving skill X? Let the demand be the driver for the skill.

Did you miss the part where I said this would be in collaboration with business to find out what they need? "You have open positions because of a lack of skill sets? Okay, what training can we provide the unemployed to fill that need?"

We do not disagree that there is a role potentially for government to assist the dislocated. We do disagree in how they would address that. That disagreement is more important IMO than what we agree on.

I'm not convinced the disagreement is there. It sounds like we're both saying very similar things.


Grape

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1838023 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/18/2012 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Did you miss the part where I said this would be in collaboration with business to find out what they need? "You have open positions because of a lack of skill sets? Okay, what training can we provide the unemployed to fill that need?"
______________________________

OK find a time going backwards where it was not providing skills in collaboration of what business needs?

The same garbage will yeild the same results.

The approach you advocate is one I have seen for a generation in NY

It is a waste

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolinGrapeApe Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1838031 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/18/2012 10:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
OK find a time going backwards where it was not providing skills in collaboration of what business needs?

I've seen training being offered but I'm not sure it's been targeted. People take college classes that may or may not be relevant.

The same garbage will yeild the same results.

The approach you advocate is one I have seen for a generation in NY


So if you have companies interview future prospects and say if you train Jane Doe then we will hire her after her training is complete, this would be a waste?


Grape

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1838033 of 1963283
Subject: Re: Income redistribution Date: 11/18/2012 11:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've seen training being offered but I'm not sure it's been targeted. People take college classes that may or may not be relevant.
___________________

In NY the focus has been on Job skills, office skills acting like functional adult skills(not exaggerating here!)

These were the demanded skills, they prepared people for jobs that there were no lack of people to fill.

So if you have companies interview future prospects and say if you train Jane Doe then we will hire her after her training is complete, this would be a waste?

That is the part we agree on, It is the delivery. Company X will always agree to hire person Y as long as there is some government grease to hire person Y. These programs always come with incentives.

Sadly what happens is that person Z just does not get the job they were already prepared for

The problem being that government has created the training and needs to justify that people are getting hired on the basis of the training.

That is why I agree with your desired result and that government can be a cog in the wheel. But I want to see the machine turning the wheel redesigned to use private market to do the training, based on as you say a job specific need and specific candidate. With the employer having some skin in the game as opposed to a reward for hiring. Minimal skin to say the least but more than zero.

I do not disagree with your goals. I have just seen the product delivered terribly by government for most of my adult life on this specific issue.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (32) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement