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)
 
Old 11-07-2013, 08:57 AM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,397,467 times
Reputation: 1173

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gomexico View Post
Yes, though doubted by the crazies on the right side of the political spectrum, food stamps are and have always been understood to be an economic stimulus ... at the same time they assist children, seniors and others in need to provide more or better meals.
It's my opinion that many middle class folks just like to oppress "somebody" and the poor are an easy target. They want to control the behavior of every person who falls into the "poor" category with their "personal responsibility sledge hammer." I think it's because many of those middle classers are just a footstep away from being poor and that poverty was where they came from. They have not been solvent long enough to have developed the more highly evolved traits of compassion or altruism. Poor people terrify them. They're too blind to see that poor people spending money on FOOD actually benefits the middle class because it stimulates the economy. They just can't see the circle. When money becomes your god, it's not a pretty sight.

 
Old 11-07-2013, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,434,384 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
Well, you're right that the upper end, the most wealthy, and corporations get away with not paying even close to their share. Can't argue with you there. If THEY did have to pay their share of income taxes, our country would be in much better shape. Btw, whatever happened to those temp tax breaks Bush gave the wealthy? Did they expire?
1. the ''bush tax cuts'' were mostly for the middleclass and the poor...infact the rich got only a small cut in the income tax

2. the ''rich'' pay MOST of the taxes...they pay way more than their share....quit using the fascist left talking points..it makes you look very foolish

3. the unreported income is from people working OFF THE BOOKS...not even being part of the system you love so much....

4. the unreported income ranges: from some estimates to 17% of the GDP (about 2 trillion worth) to other estimates of 50% of the GDP (about 7.5-9 trillion worth)


you want the rich to pay??? them get rid of the income tax, and install a consumption tax
FairTax.org Home Page - Americans For Fair Taxation

Last edited by workingclasshero; 11-07-2013 at 09:33 AM..
 
Old 11-07-2013, 09:02 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,434,384 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
What types of things are included in an "underground shadow economy"?
its unreported INCOME

the waite staff that only reports half their tips...unreported income
the landscaper that works only for cash......unreported income
make a living selling stuff on ebay...they dont file 1099's......unreported income


etc. almost every aspect of life..to inculde some of the illegal jobs (ie drug dealing, prostitution, etc)(illegals working for cash only)


you have heard of """"working off the books"""" , havent you??? you do understand that those who work off the books DONT PAY income or payroll taxes on this unreported income......since you so love the system, you of all people should be wanting to stop these thiefs
 
Old 11-07-2013, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,132,047 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
$36 from a $600 benefit from a family of four (two parents and one child) is not a "deep cut" says you. Obviously you've never tried to walk a mile in the shoes of those people. Do you even have a clue what $36 will buy in the grocery store?

"Deep" is relative to the amount of money you have to spend on food. If it's no problem for you to spend $800 a month on food for a family of four, then maybe a $36 cut is nothing to you. In fact, many families of four do not even get the federal allowance of $200 per month because different states pay out different maximum amounts, but rarely if EVER more than $200 per person. Even for people who have to live on less than $800 per month, the max benefit now is about $165 in Florida!

Yea, right, $36 is not a "deep cut" IN YOUR OPINION. But you don't have to live in the circumstances of a SNAP recipient.
Let me ask a question... Are they starving? Nope. Their still getting over 500.00 a month in food. I could serve a family a four VERY well for 500.00 a month. And Snap stands for supplemental. Are they not putting any of their own money into feeding their family? Food stamps are assistance its not designed to be something which takes the total amount off a family's budget and turns it into zero.
 
Old 11-07-2013, 09:13 AM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,397,467 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
1. the ''bush tax cuts'' were mostly for the middleclass and the poor...infact the rich got only a small cut in the income tax

2. the ''rich'' pay MOST of the taxes...they pay way more than their share....quit using the fascist left talking points..it makes you look very foolish

3. the unreported income is form people working OFF THE BOOKS...not even being part of the system you love so much....

4. the unreported income ranges: from some estimates to 17% of the GDP (about 2 trillion worth) to other estimates of 50% of the GDP (about 7.5-9 trillion worth)


you want the rich to pay??? them get rid of the income tax, and install a consumption tax
FairTax.org Home Page - Americans For Fair Taxation
What do you consider "rich"?

additionally, people who make extremely low incomes don't have to pay taxes because they don't qualify. THAT'S how the big companies who pay part time less than minimum wage get you to pay for their overhead and take even more money from you. People who want a job and cant find one, don't pay taxes because they have no income.

When Warren Buffet pays a LOWER percentage in income taxes than his secretary, that tells you something. Also, LAST TIME I LOOKED it was the Republicans who absolutely will not stand for raising taxes at all anywhere.
 
Old 11-07-2013, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,132,047 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
What do you consider "rich"?

additionally, people who make extremely low incomes don't have to pay taxes because they don't qualify. THAT'S how the big companies who pay part time less than minimum wage get you to pay for their overhead and take even more money from you. People who want a job and cant find one, don't pay taxes because they have no income.

When Warren Buffet pays a LOWER percentage in income taxes than his secretary, that tells you something. Also, LAST TIME I LOOKED it was the Republicans who absolutely will not stand for raising taxes at all anywhere.
Warren Buffet pays a lower effective rate because his income is based on capital gains, not earned income as his secretary's. Whether that is right or wrong isn't the issue here, but you really need to figure out why that statement happens before you try to apply that logic....
 
Old 11-07-2013, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,615,875 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post

THAT'S how the big companies who pay part time less than minimum wage get you to pay for their overhead and take even more money from you.
Just curious....what big companies pay less than minimum wage?
 
Old 11-07-2013, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,434,384 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
What do you consider "rich"?

additionally, people who make extremely low incomes don't have to pay taxes because they don't qualify. THAT'S how the big companies who pay part time less than minimum wage get you to pay for their overhead and take even more money from you. People who want a job and cant find one, don't pay taxes because they have no income.

When Warren Buffet pays a LOWER percentage in income taxes than his secretary, that tells you something. Also, LAST TIME I LOOKED it was the Republicans who absolutely will not stand for raising taxes at all anywhere.
did you really bring up warren buffett??

buffett is a proven liar

buffet LIED when he said this

buffet pays an effective 17%...we will go with that

buffets secretary is a married homeowner with 2 kids....making 60k.....just based on thr 60k here bracket would be 15%(lower than buffets 17%)...but that is not the actual WHOLE truth.......with the standard deduction, the 3700 times the 4 exemptions, etc she pays ZERO in tax..the only thing she ends up paying on the federal side is SS/medi for a total of 8%

buffett is a PROVEN LIAR

buffett is a lying baffoon



FACT: making 60k (which is what buffet himself says she makes) puts her in the 15% bracket..and that's based on her ENTIRE 60k being taxed..and we ALL KNOW that is never the case...even single you have the personal exemption, and the standard deduction

buffets states he gets taxed at 17% and that is less than his secretary...fact that is a LIE

there is no disbuting that fact

buffett lied

he said his secretary pays 30% in federal taxes

if she is single/renter)(which she is not) this would be the number

That would give her taxable income of $50,250 ($60,000 less 1 exemption @ $3,400 and a standard deduction of $5,360) and a federal income tax liability of $8,986.25 – $4,386.25 + 25% of the excess over $31,850. So, the secretary’s effective Federal income tax rate is only 15% ($8,986.25 / $60,000). Hmmmm.



certainly not the 30% that buffett lied about

other FACTS:
we're talking about a married secretary. They file jointly, pay a home mortgage and have kids (still claimed or not) . They probably place at least $4,000 in an 401k (the average is about 7%) and itemize $15,000 in deductions(about 3k over the standard deduction). .....Here the tax picture changes dramatically. ....Taxable income drops to $27,800 -- the 15 percent tax bracket. With child tax credits, secretary now pays $1,419 in federal taxes, or 2.4 percent of $60,000. Add in another 2 percent for $1,218 in state taxes, and secretary pays a grand total, state and federal(to include payroll(ss)), of 4.4 percent on the $60,000-a-year salary.

meanwhile buffett paid over 8 million in taxes
 
Old 11-07-2013, 09:25 AM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,397,467 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by aus10 View Post
Let me ask a question... Are they starving? Nope. Their still getting over 500.00 a month in food. I could serve a family a four VERY well for 500.00 a month. And Snap stands for supplemental. Are they not putting any of their own money into feeding their family? Food stamps are assistance its not designed to be something which takes the total amount off a family's budget and turns it into zero.
Kids going to school hungry could be an early indication of starving. The reason these people get food assistance is because they do not make enough money to buy other necessities of life, like, laundry detergent, household cleaners/bleach, personal hygiene products (toilet paper, toothpaste, soap, etc) and rent and utilities and water and garbage disposal, and clothes and/or diapers to wear, and etc., etc. YOU do realize that food stamps pay for FOOD ONLY, don't you? How would you keep your household clean and your family clean if you didn't have enough money to buy many of the above products? Being clean promotes good health. And, yes, Supplemental means that we do not provide these people with all the money they need to feed their families, so they do indeed spend part of the money they earn for food.

If you could get your head around the FACT that SNAP money spent on food in grocery stores actually stimulates the economy and HELPS YOU, maybe you could get over your poverty mentality and realize that the fact is when someone else gets something that doesn't mean that you get LESS or that it is taken away from you. The tax money that is provided to people via SNAP stimulates the economy for EVERYBODY, grocery stores, employees in the food industry, farmers, EVERYBODY gets something as result of those dollars being spent for food. Mostly the local community benefits. If people who qualify for SNAP benefits were not given that money, then you'd see more unemployment, more sick people in the ER (costly to you), and ultimately lots of social unrest.
 
Old 11-07-2013, 09:26 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,804 posts, read 44,610,756 times
Reputation: 13626
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
Well, you're right that the upper end, the most wealthy, and corporations get away with not paying even close to their share.
Prove that by citing actual IRS data on the effective federal income tax rates paid by "the upper end, the most wealthy, and corporations" along with that of everyone else.

The truth is not what you erroneously believe.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:17 AM.

© 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