U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2010, 10:21 AM
 
Location: USA
13,266 posts, read 10,363,421 times
Reputation: 4228

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1 View Post
Yes, I have seen violence.

It contributed to my success.

I NEVER wanted to depend on a man.

Never have, never will.
It's a little difference when your living environment is filled with it. Ever seen somebody get shot or stabbed? How old were you? What type of school did you go to? What is your socioeconomic background?

Saw a guy get shot when I was 15. Another when I was 17. Saw my Social Studies teacher get beat up. My family was poor until I was 6. Middle class through junior high. Upper middle class in high school (both parents pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and grew a business). Went to good elementary schools but a violent junior high and high school. By no means though was my condition near some of the conditions some kids grow up in.

My parents both pulled themselves up through that latter so I'm not saying it can't be done or some people don't do it. I'm just not so naive to believe that anybody can prosper under certain circumstances. I also was in a unique position where I got to see both sides of the argument.

My parents and myself (I'm middle class, not wealthy) both believe those who are wealthy should have a higher tax rate.

But to be quite blunt, while I'm still on the social topic. When you grow up seeing people get murdered all around you, you don't have role models, and your environment is depressing to say the least...its very tought to become a model citizens.

We were all dumb teenagers at one point. Sympathy is good when warranted. With that being said, I'm not calling for wealth redistribution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2010, 10:26 AM
 
Location: USA
13,266 posts, read 10,363,421 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
true on both accounts, but misleading at the same time. there are people who because of unfortunate circumstances are working poor, usually due to constant health issues, or other financial issues. and there are certainly rich people who inherited they money. but these are the ends of the bell curve and thus outside the norm.



actually more people move up the economic ladder than you might think. most of the time it is because they decide they have had enough of working for someone else, and they go into business for themselves. often times you dont hear about these people because they tend to prefer a low profile for many reasons, privacy being the biggest one.



it wasnt always that way. back when teachers were actually respected, and had authority, things like this didnt happen as often as they do now. teachers have essentially become glorified babysitters, with no authority to discipline students because the parents dont want their children spanked. in the end however, the student and the parents have to take responsibility for their kids failures. many is the time that people have gotten themselves out of the above living conditions and made something of themselves, but they did it because they WANTED to.



while economic circumstances do help, there are many rich kids that turn bad because they had no rules put on them when they were children. again the parents and the kids have to take responsibility for their actions.



working hard is fine, but if you are going to get rich you have to work smart as well.



really? increasing taxes 3% on $20,000 is $600, where as increasing taxes 3% on 200,000 is $6000. both are going to feel the burden in the same way.



No they're not going to fill the burden in the same way. That $600 is going to be felt a lot more by the poorer person than the $6,000 will be by the rich person.

It might me one less vacation for the wealthy person. Maybe slightly less cash to invest.

It might mean going into debt or having to give up a basic necessity for the poor person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2010, 10:36 AM
 
24,843 posts, read 32,298,423 times
Reputation: 11452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
It's a little difference when your living environment is filled with it. Ever seen somebody get shot or stabbed? How old were you? What type of school did you go to? What is your socioeconomic background?

Saw a guy get shot when I was 15. Another when I was 17. Saw my Social Studies teacher get beat up. My family was poor until I was 6. Middle class through junior high. Upper middle class in high school (both parents pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and grew a business). Went to good elementary schools but a violent junior high and high school. By no means though was my condition near some of the conditions some kids grow up in.

My parents both pulled themselves up through that latter so I'm not saying it can't be done or some people don't do it. I'm just not so naive to believe that anybody can prosper under certain circumstances. I also was in a unique position where I got to see both sides of the argument.

My parents and myself (I'm middle class, not wealthy) both believe those who are wealthy should have a higher tax rate.

But to be quite blunt, while I'm still on the social topic. When you grow up seeing people get murdered all around you, you don't have role models, and your environment is depressing to say the least...its very tought to become a model citizens.

We were all dumb teenagers at one point. Sympathy is good when warranted. With that being said, I'm not calling for wealth redistribution.
I will nor share much but, I will tell you I grew up around alcoholics.

I saw my father shoot and kill my mother.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2010, 10:37 AM
 
24,843 posts, read 32,298,423 times
Reputation: 11452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
No they're not going to fill the burden in the same way. That $600 is going to be felt a lot more by the poorer person than the $6,000 will be by the rich person.

It might me one less vacation for the wealthy person. Maybe slightly less cash to invest.

It might mean going into debt or having to give up a basic necessity for the poor person.
So we will tax on how someone "feels"????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2010, 10:42 AM
 
32,283 posts, read 26,139,669 times
Reputation: 18927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
It's a little difference when your living environment is filled with it. Ever seen somebody get shot or stabbed? How old were you? What type of school did you go to? What is your socioeconomic background?

Saw a guy get shot when I was 15. Another when I was 17. Saw my Social Studies teacher get beat up. My family was poor until I was 6. Middle class through junior high. Upper middle class in high school (both parents pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and grew a business). Went to good elementary schools but a violent junior high and high school. By no means though was my condition near some of the conditions some kids grow up in.

My parents both pulled themselves up through that latter so I'm not saying it can't be done or some people don't do it. I'm just not so naive to believe that anybody can prosper under certain circumstances. I also was in a unique position where I got to see both sides of the argument.

My parents and myself (I'm middle class, not wealthy) both believe those who are wealthy should have a higher tax rate.

But to be quite blunt, while I'm still on the social topic. When you grow up seeing people get murdered all around you, you don't have role models, and your environment is depressing to say the least...its very tought to become a model citizens.

We were all dumb teenagers at one point. Sympathy is good when warranted. With that being said, I'm not calling for wealth redistribution.
you are for the wealthy paying a higher tax rate, but you are not for redistribution of wealth? just what do you think the government is going to do with those higher taxes? thats right they are going to redistribute that wealth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
No they're not going to fill the burden in the same way. That $600 is going to be felt a lot more by the poorer person than the $6,000 will be by the rich person.

It might me one less vacation for the wealthy person. Maybe slightly less cash to invest.

It might mean going into debt or having to give up a basic necessity for the poor person.
you are operating under a fallacy here that the tax rates to begin with are similar, and they are not. you are also operating under the fallacy that the person making $200,000 is paying out the same amount of money that the other guy is, and that is also wrong. the guy making $20k may be renting there place, where as the guy making $200k bought their place, and is making a mortgage payment along with paying property taxes. you cant just look at income levels and say that an increase in taxes will hurt the poor guy more than the rich guy. where the people live is as important as how much they make. the guy making $20 might live in a small town where property taxes are low along with the cost of living, where as the guy making $200k is living in the city where property taxes are much higher, as well as the cost of living.

so before you jump on the guy making $200k and say well he can afford it, look at his situation first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2010, 10:47 AM
 
Location: USA
13,266 posts, read 10,363,421 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1 View Post
I will nor share much but, I will tell you I grew up around alcoholics.

I saw my father shoot and kill my mother.
Very, very sorry to hear that and apologize for bringing that up.

The point I'm trying to make is that its not always easy for people to improve their financial situation. There's tons of factors that can determine a person's financial situation.

I have a serious issue with those who look down on people who are lower class. Instead of looking at ways to help those people, we just demonize them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2010, 10:57 AM
 
Location: USA
13,266 posts, read 10,363,421 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
you are for the wealthy paying a higher tax rate, but you are not for redistribution of wealth? just what do you think the government is going to do with those higher taxes? thats right they are going to redistribute that wealth.



you are operating under a fallacy here that the tax rates to begin with are similar, and they are not. you are also operating under the fallacy that the person making $200,000 is paying out the same amount of money that the other guy is, and that is also wrong. the guy making $20k may be renting there place, where as the guy making $200k bought their place, and is making a mortgage payment along with paying property taxes. you cant just look at income levels and say that an increase in taxes will hurt the poor guy more than the rich guy. where the people live is as important as how much they make. the guy making $20 might live in a small town where property taxes are low along with the cost of living, where as the guy making $200k is living in the city where property taxes are much higher, as well as the cost of living.

so before you jump on the guy making $200k and say well he can afford it, look at his situation first.
To your 1st point. No they're not redistributing wealth. Less than 1% of the federal budget goes to welfare. The tax money goes towards things like the military, infastructure, education, etc.

If we have more tax revenue (and a government doing its job) than we more money to spend on those things. We're ranked 12th amongst developed countries as far as the number of college graduates aged 24-35.

To your 2nd point, I was replying to a scenario presented in a previous thread. If we HAD to increase tax revenue to balance the budget. Would you take the $600 from the guy making $20,000 a year. Or the $6,000 from the guy making $200,000 a year?

Both are paying taxes for the securities we take advantage of in this country. Both pay taxes on everyday goods. Both work hard for their money.

I say you take the money away from the guy making $200,000. Which is how our progressive tax system is currently set up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2010, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Don't be a cry baby!
1,310 posts, read 1,181,891 times
Reputation: 617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
I see where your coming from but your also making a lot of assumptions. All people who are rich don't get their because of their hard work, talent, etc. All those who are poor aren't that way because they're lazy.

Very few people move up and down the economic latter these days. I think its a little idealistic to think we live in a country where anyone can just pull themselves up by the boot straps. I guess we're getting into social issues but whatever...I'll bite.

Take a kid from the Southside of Chicago. He goes to an underfunded inner city school with horrible conditions. Gangs run his school and the teachers spend more time disciplining than actually teaching. He graduates but flunks out of college or doesn't even make it to college because of his dire living conditions (remember, we have some of the MOST dangerous cities in the world).

Take a kid from a wealthy family. Goes to a great private school. Parents pay for college so he has no debt after graduating. His parents know people and he gets a great job coming out. He moves up the economic latter due to his work ethic.

Are either of the kids "bad"? I think we should stop using the term bad or good when we're discussing this issue. There's poor people who are lazy and there's rich people who are lazy. There's extremely hard working rich people and extremely hard working poor people.

The fact of the matter is, a wealthy person is not going to fill the impact of being taxed at a slightly higher rate like a poor person would. That's the whole issue.
Likewise, I see your point I just disagree to some of it.
In my mind, making someone pay more taxes because of their income is like adding a governor (speed controlling devise) to a sports car because it's fast. Instead of forcing rich to pay more how about reward those who become richer. Keep the field fair and stop favoring one group for another. I've started a thread about "Who are the rich?". Who are we calling rich vs who is congress calling rich.
I make a nice living doing a job I like. It wasn't handed to me, my mom or dad didn't make a phone call for me. I chose a career and followed up. I spent my time my money and went through hefty amount of personal sacrifice to get here. I earn well above the average American, I probably put forth more effort than him/her too, but because less fortunate folks think I'm rich I should pay more? Bu11 $h1t. Even back when I was earning $6.50 per hour I said, "Don’t tax the rich, I hope to be there one day!"
My pursuit of happiness and financial freedom shouldn't involve getting stuck with what some call my extra duty to pay more taxes. If people want what I have then find a way to get it not double down on those who have it.

Are poor folks lazy? I never said that on this thread. We need to define lazy as it fits this thread as we would need to define rich for this thread too.
Come to my home and you will not have a clue to my income nor will it appear as if I am rich (and I'm not). I have a nice home, moderate cars, and quality furnishings. I have earned these thing and forcing me to pay more in taxes because I have these things is IMO nothing less than thievery. I don't wish the poor to pay more in taxes even though the poor get way more in government funded programs government funded food, housing, cell phones, more tax refunds then they have actually put in, free education and free healthcare (before Obamacare). So why focus on some who already pays more?
So we simply agree to disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2010, 12:12 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 34,347,414 times
Reputation: 4031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
To your 1st point. No they're not redistributing wealth. Less than 1% of the federal budget goes to welfare. The tax money goes towards things like the military, infastructure, education, etc.

If we have more tax revenue (and a government doing its job) than we more money to spend on those things. We're ranked 12th amongst developed countries as far as the number of college graduates aged 24-35.

To your 2nd point, I was replying to a scenario presented in a previous thread. If we HAD to increase tax revenue to balance the budget. Would you take the $600 from the guy making $20,000 a year. Or the $6,000 from the guy making $200,000 a year?

Both are paying taxes for the securities we take advantage of in this country. Both pay taxes on everyday goods. Both work hard for their money.

I say you take the money away from the guy making $200,000. Which is how our progressive tax system is currently set up.
Quote:
Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $708 billion, will pay for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,117 per month to 36 million retired workers (and their eligible dependents) in December 2009.
Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — will together account for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $753 billion.
Safety net programs: About 14 percent of the federal budget in 2010, or $482 billion, will support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2010, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Pasadena
7,412 posts, read 8,203,326 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamweaver69 View Post
My candidates didn't make it to the big dance, but tell me how ANYONE could possibly support this pig:


YouTube - ‪Sen. Boxer: condescending, disrespectful, or just mean?‬‎
I thought the subject of this thread had to do with "Poor vs Rich" and how our elected representative reflect that in their votes? It always seems the typical Republican cop-out is to change the topic when they can't explain why their people vote against the needs of America. BTW, you must be very lonely living in a state that is so much unlike you; Republicans in California have very few friends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:06 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top