Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 09-13-2013, 04:39 PM
 
25,619 posts, read 36,707,101 times
Reputation: 23295

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
And? What does this have to do with taxing bankers and Wall St. derivatives? Do you own an investment bank?
Maybe its time for a washing of that brain, reread the OP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-13-2013, 04:40 PM
 
25,619 posts, read 36,707,101 times
Reputation: 23295
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
Explaining economics to a leftie is like explaining quantum physics to a dog.
HEY, wait a minute...

Woof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 04:42 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,824,055 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
10% across the board on everything they take......welfare, food stamps, phones, housing, energy credits, child care money, etc.

"But they're poor!"

So what!
The problem is they would be paying the tax with money I already have them. Just reduce benifits accross the board.

Many benifits should tail off over time. Person x could start with unemployment at the regular dollar amount as now, then after 3 months it drops 10%, then after another 3 months another 10% this continues until they either find a job or unemployment is 0$. To get the amount to reset they have to work 4160 hours within a a 6240 hour period.

Something simalur should be don't with all other forms of subsidies. The government is supposed to help people get back on their feet, not foot the bill so people can stay on their ass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 04:43 PM
 
13,900 posts, read 9,773,129 times
Reputation: 6856
Quote:
Originally Posted by vox populi View Post
the problem is the people are dumb.

and they are being dumbed down even more.

one of the ways is lowering the standards of public schools.- to ensure the new generations of dependent grateful. for the bone.

p.s. I am sorry for the political divide in the family. at this point it would be unbearable.
I am lucky - we don't have one
Every state except Texas and Virginia have adopted the Common Core standards that raise standards for public schools.

Why don't you know that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Arizona, The American Southwest
54,498 posts, read 33,869,039 times
Reputation: 91679
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV8n View Post
Wouldn't it be more efficient to just reduce their benefits by 10%?
Whatever happened to the Work-Fare program that was part of the welfare reform that passed in 1996?

As much as I want to see the cost of welfare drop, and see a lot less people on welfare, and eliminate welfare fraud so that us tax payers, who work for a living won't have to pay for this, taxing welfare recipients may not be the best solution, but maybe put the 10% tax for the welfare recipients on some sort of an IOU account. Once the recipients start working, then withhold the owed amount in small payments from their paychecks until it's fully paid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 05:06 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,824,055 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnum Mike View Post
Whatever happened to the Work-Fare program that was part of the welfare reform that was passed in 1996?

As much as I want to see the cost of welfare drop, and see a lot less people on welfare, and eliminate welfare fraud so that us tax payers, who work for a living, taxing welfare recipients may not be the best solution, but maybe put the 10% tax for the welfare recipients on some sort of an IOU account. Once the recipients start working, then withhold the owed amount in small payments from their paychecks until it's fully paid.
That would just encourage them more not to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Arizona, The American Southwest
54,498 posts, read 33,869,039 times
Reputation: 91679
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
That would just encourage them more not to work.
True, that's when there are other options to encourage recipients to work and make a legitimate living. Instead of withholding the amount they owe from their paychecks, the money they owe can be paid when they file their tax returns. Most of them usually get refunds, so.. instead of giving them refunds, keep the money, until the debt they owe is completely paid off. I'm sure a lot of them would prefer to see a decent paycheck rather than what little they get from welfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 05:30 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,824,055 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnum Mike View Post
True, that's when there are other options to encourage recipients to work and make a legitimate living. Instead of withholding the amount they owe from their paychecks, the money they owe can be paid when they file their tax returns. Most of them usually get refunds, so.. instead of giving them refunds, keep the money, until the debt they owe is completely paid off. I'm sure a lot of them would prefer to see a decent paycheck rather than what little they get from welfare.
This seems like a lot more work than just reducing benifits. I prefer my idea in post 53.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 05:38 PM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
33,942 posts, read 22,532,112 times
Reputation: 25816
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
Oh...because obama's economy is chugging along so well, huh?

There's a reason I call them "dummycrats".

I'll get to keep more of the money that I earned....not have it taken and given to someone else.
Unless you earn money by posting on CD ~ I can't imagine when you might have time to earn any.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Arizona, The American Southwest
54,498 posts, read 33,869,039 times
Reputation: 91679
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
This seems like a lot more work than just reducing benifits. I prefer my idea in post 53.
I like your idea in post 53 also, which can be another option recipients have.

All in all, we need to discourage welfare recipients from getting on, and staying on welfare for a long time.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:11 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top