I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's true. The various laws and regulations used over the years to combat discrimination were necessary, and remain necessary to an extent, but they are overused and have become overly burdensome to commerce. There needs to be an effort to aggressively weed out bullshit claims from very real ones.

I will make an observation here as someone who doesn't get involved myself in the litigation of these kinds of claims but who does work at the board level with companies who have to deal with them.

The Companies where I hear complaints about U.S. employment laws tend to be Companies whose management is all white and all male.

Show me a Company with a diverse boardroom OR upper management (not even both), and I'll show you a Company with minimal worries about employment claims.

Is it possible that the merit of such claims correlates at least somewhat to their frequency and burden?

On the other hand, everyone in management complains about employment laws in other countries, which tend to be massively more protective of employees.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The biggest offense to libertarian values that I see on a regular basis is zoning laws, which limit what you can do with your real property less to solve any sort of market failure and more to benefit the most affluent, those who own more expensive residential real estate. Because libertarians are really about preserving traditional social hierarchies, and thus the status of the most well-off, they essentially ignore zoning.

Damn, man, that's the set of laws I'd most like to go all libertarian on.

I mean, screw that bitch next door who complains about my dog barking on my property. It's my dog and my property.

And why can't I keep goats?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You knock down strawmen with the best of them!

What this country really needs is a good tax on strawmen (or, as the case may be, stawpeople, though I do think most people of straw are men for some reason).

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What this country really needs is a good tax on strawmen (or, as the case may be, stawpeople, though I do think most people of straw are men for some reason).

I tend to agree. My guess that the straw person population is highly skewed male. It's James Brown Thursday on the Daily Dose! Here's a nice old one. From 1967, it's "Let Yourself Go":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBedC0qH2mk

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If the "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" label means Wonk, we live in a nice world. I don't think the label is usually applied to the Wonks of the world, however.

I mean, I can argue I'm a libertarian, myself. But then I'd have to apply mouth-to-mouth to resuscitate Sebby and I have no interest in that.

I'm no libertarian. Those people are nuts.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

What does that mean? Because government is uniquely suited to experimental research, the kind that isn't tied directly to product development, which is indirectly a big subsidy for pharma if it ever leads to something.

You could change that by getting government into the drug/device business, which would come with its own set of problems, but I don't think you want to take it away.

In the first place, new drugs and devices are priced out of the reach of most Americans. I don't care about a new diabetes drug if the price (with Part D) is $475/mo. If I can't afford it, and most Americans can't afford it, it's just part of the oligarchy machine.

But what I mean is primarily getting rid of the system that allows Pharma to (a) charge Americans far more than they do the rest of the world for drugs and (b) eliminating the tax break pharma gets by applying Reg. 1.861-17, which allows Pharma to allocate almost all of its R&D expenditures to the US. That regulation allows the companies to shelter massive amounts of income in the US for drugs that are sold all over the world. If the expenses had to be allocated in accordance with sales, that alone would lead to a leveling in drug prices across the globe.

But keep subsidies for small ag? That doesn't sound like it would work either.

I don't favor agricultural subsidies, period. But the notion that ADM and Cargill can get paid tens of millions to not grow food in a world where people go hungry is obscene.

And very much not a libertarian.

I never said I was a libertarian. When I think libertarian, I think Ayn Rand and her followers, who I view as scum.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think your definition of "fiscally conservative" may be your own.

TM

I yam what I yam.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Wonk is trying to kill me. It's personal, because the last time I saw him he ended up in the hospital.

Actually, it's not that I'm trying to kill you. I just resent my tax burden being increased because of income sheltering for drugs I can't afford.

[Replaced_Texan]

This is just horrifying: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...trump-movement

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

I do wish there was more of a constituency for this. Even more modest cuts could free quite a bit of money for other things.




What does this even mean? Which social program are non-essential and which are the welfare state that should be preserved? And things like food stamps are both a subsidy to food producers and part of the welfare state/safety net. Which bucket do they fall in?



It's now quite some time ago, but my dad used to bitch about all the paperwork he had to fill out for his 75 year old mother, who had nearly cut her hand off working as a meat inspector years before and also suffered parkinson's and various mental illnesses, to continue to receive disability.

Maybe it's gotten easier since then? Is there something in particular that makes you think that they aren't trying to prevent fraud? Maybe they need a little more funding for that function?

Every time I hear someone talk about disability "fraud" it makes me want to wrap my hands around their throat and squeeze until their eyes pop out of their sockets.

Social Security denies literally every claim that is made, and makes people go through a couple years of hoops and administrative bullshit (wasting billions of dollars), including in many cases a trial before an ALJ before they find someone disabled. Then they pay them all back benefits with interest. The SSA freely admits they deny all claims because they have found that many people will simply give up or get overwhelmed along the road. Sort f a Ford Pinto analysis. If a private insurer used the same methods, they would be jailed.

There's your fucking disability fraud.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Our military budget is a subsidy for certain workers and companies at detriment to taxpayers. It's also an easy lever from which politicians may wring campaign funds and pork. That industry is the true basket of deplorables.



Food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies, fine. Basic subsistence (food, health care, shelter). On top of that, I'd add a negative income tax, or "living wage." Instead of paying all the administration costs of the endless programs providing benefits above basic subsistence, I'd give $$$ directly to the people who need it. Yes, that would involve converting a whole lot of govt workers into recipients of the benefits distribution of which they currently oversee. That's fine with me. It's just trading one form of transfer payment (the cost of a bureaucrat) for another cheaper one (the cost of subsidizing an ex-bureaucrat).



SSDI's been abused since 2008. It's become a go-to source of income for a lot of people who can't otherwise survive, at cost to those honest people who really deserve the disability payments. It's unconscionable that people with iffy back injuries should be sucking up benefits while a guy with congestive heart failure or MS has to wait forever, or suffer initial denial. There's a special ring in hell for the able-bodied people using SSDI as "enhanced, extended welfare." And a hotter one for their lawyers.



We know they weren't trying to prevent fraud because the Admin in 2009 relaxed its claims scrutiny, because it lowered unemployment numbers and avoided what was then a real concern about impending social unrest. But we're past that now, and SSDI is being more aggressive about guarding against fraud. The problem is, there's still a huge backlog because these legions of hopeless workers are still throwing claims and appeals at the program. Perhaps more spending is needed to weed them out. Or perhaps just better use of the current staff at SSDI.

They did not relax scrutiny. I went through the process in 2010-2013 and I had to appeal twice. I was able to get through the process because I had private LTD. If I had not had any income for that 2.5 years, and I had been forced to find some kind of work to keep food on the table and a roof over my head, my claim would have been denied because clearly, if I was working, I couldn't be disabled. At the very least, under current standards, a person has to have less than $1030/mo income from employment to qualify. If they make one dollar more in any one month, their claim will be denied.

It's all rather Kafkaesque. It may also be why I sound embittered, rabidly anti-government, and a bit crazy at times. Welfare is similarly stacked against the claimant. If you don't have kids, you have to have been unemployed, with no source of income for at least a year.

Look carefully at our so-called safety net and low-level street crime starts to make sense. A body's gotta eat.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

In the first place, new drugs and devices are priced out of the reach of most Americans. I don't care about a new diabetes drug if the price (with Part D) is $475/mo. If I can't afford it, and most Americans can't afford it, it's just part of the oligarchy machine.

I take your point, but (1) you're going to cost people who can afford it (i.e., have insurance that covers it) their lives, and (2) those drugs get a whole lot cheaper when they come off patent.

Rather than sacrifice the new discoveries that improve and save lives, maybe you should make sure more people can afford drugs and/or reform our broken patent system.

eliminating the tax break pharma gets by applying Reg. 1.861-17, which allows Pharma to allocate almost all of its R&D expenditures to the US. That regulation allows the companies to shelter massive amounts of income in the US for drugs that are sold all over the world. If the expenses had to be allocated in accordance with sales, that alone would lead to a leveling in drug prices across the globe.

You really think that's a bigger driver than our patent system and lack of monopsony buyer?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I will make an observation here as someone who doesn't get involved myself in the litigation of these kinds of claims but who does work at the board level with companies who have to deal with them.

The Companies where I hear complaints about U.S. employment laws tend to be Companies whose management is all white and all male.

Show me a Company with a diverse boardroom OR upper management (not even both), and I'll show you a Company with minimal worries about employment claims.

Is it possible that the merit of such claims correlates at least somewhat to their frequency and burden?

On the other hand, everyone in management complains about employment laws in other countries, which tend to be massively more protective of employees.

In my limited experience, it's more bitching about the need to buy EPL insurance (and the cost of same) and having to pretend to care about the issue than it is about actual discrimination claims being filed against them.

Oh, and there is always some guy whose friend got sued after he fired some [insert name of a protected class here] who actually stole [toner cartridges/money/computers/etc.] from the company, and the friend lost and had to pay [her/him/them] $100k.

Clients. Gotta love them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I will make an observation here as someone who doesn't get involved myself in the litigation of these kinds of claims but who does work at the board level with companies who have to deal with them.

The Companies where I hear complaints about U.S. employment laws tend to be Companies whose management is all white and all male.

Show me a Company with a diverse boardroom OR upper management (not even both), and I'll show you a Company with minimal worries about employment claims.

my experience is over a limited number of years working for a Government employee union while in LS. We mostly could help people when the managers over reacted and screwed up on procedure. they would do that when the employee deserved to be fired. Those folks we could save. when a manager decided to fuck someone over they would be careful about steps to that point, so the really wrong stuff we couldn't help with. note, back in the day those managers were mostly male, but not all white. employment law would not be a fun gig, i think.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Sebastian, I am probably the one person here most receptive to your third-party candidate arguments.

Ahem, but Johnson is/was a joke.