Gallup: Rich vs Poor Gap...Acceptable Part of Economic System (wage, conspiracy)
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.
That's exactly what's going wrong with paying low- and no income people to breed. The result is their birth rate is 3 times higher than everyone else's. They're favored and singled out for special treatment each and every time they bear another child they cannot afford to care for. There's no way that policy benefits anyone, long-term or immediately.
How does encouraging and enabling the exponential growth of the welfare-dependent class benefit society, now or in the future? How does dramatically increasing the number of those living in poverty solve the problems known to be associated with poverty?
Who exactly are all these breeders? At my last job I worked with two dozen other people, all of whom earned within a few cents of minimum wage; only one was married, and only two had children (and zero owned a home). At my previous jobs, there were only a few with children and they were the ones earning high five figures.
Women who receive any form of public assistance. Their birth rate is 3 times higher than women who don't receive public assistance. I've already posted the links confirming those stats.
Again, those receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than everyone else. Those who can least afford to care for children are having the most.
Again, those receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than everyone else. Those who can least afford to care for children are having the most.
Only if they have children, which kinda conveniently fits in with a 3x higher birth rate. Welfare as we know (knew) it doesn't exist for employed childless adults, and they don't even qualify for EITC if employed full time or nearly so.
An interesting question would which came first, the job or the child?
Only if they have children, which kinda conveniently fits in with a 3x higher birth rate. Welfare as we know (knew) it doesn't exist for employed childless adults
Total BS. Food stamps, housing assistance, etc., are available to low-income employed childless adults. Those are all forms of public assistance.
Taking less of someone's earned income in taxes is not the same as giving someone additional money/vouchers in public assistance benefits.
It's still wrong. Or are you a moral relativatist? As a renter (involuntary), I am forced to subsidize homeowners when they get tax breaks. I would clearly be better off with no tax breaks and a lower tax rate for everybody.
For years I lived in a house which has an extra $1,200 property tax because it was a rental. This $1,200 extra property tax was the cost of taking less of my next door neighbor's (Bob) earned income in taxes - a cost borne by me. How is this different from taxing both homes at the same rate and giving Bob the equivalent dollar amount in cash?
You may think so but all it actually is is taking less of their earned income in taxes, not paying them any additional money/benefits.
Quote:
As a renter (involuntary), I am forced to subsidize homeowners when they get tax breaks.
You're not forced. It's your choice to rent.
Quote:
I would clearly be better off with no tax breaks and a lower tax rate for everybody.
I've frequently espoused a flat tax rate applied to all. Nearly all the liberals here on C-D object to that. The funniest part of that is that it's at that point that they're forced to admit that they're wrong when they claim the rich don't pay their fair share. The rich, in fact, pay multiple times their fair share and a flat tax would even that out on a more equitable basis. They're forced to admit that they really don't want everyone to pay their fair share, they just want everyone else to pay more than they do.
Quote:
For years I lived in a house which has an extra $1,200 property tax because it was a rental.
Because rentals are a business. That's what happens when liberals want to tax businesses and business owners more.
And again, renting was your CHOICE. Don't want to lose the tax and interest deduction so you can keep more of the money you earn? Buy, don't rent.
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.
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.
