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 04-07-2014, 04:45 PM
 
66,240 posts, read 30,160,286 times
Reputation: 8607

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
So what sort of work requirements are you thinking?
Work that is worth the basic income amount received, however be aware that current labor markets define the value of that.

Quote:
I've watched all of my children have to really struggle to find work
Mine haven't, but that's because we actually live in reality, don't have the false impression that anyone owes us anything simply because we exist, and we use current information and indicating trends for planning and decision-making purposes.

Quote:
so whats your solution to the rich amassing money that makes them wealthier and wealthier over time without any conscious work or effort?
Reduce their tax rates. Penalizing them for realizing gains is EXACTLY why they're hoarding and continuing to amass their wealth.

Also... consider very carefully this economist's conclusion:
Quote:
"[Economist Anatole] Kaletsky argues that over-reliance on progressive taxes creates "a perverse incentive for governments to promote income inequality. If the solvency of the state and the ability to fund basic services for the poorest people in society depends on the rich getting even richer, it is tempting for even the most progressive politicians to support widening inequalities."
The liberal case for regressive taxation - Salon.com

As long as the U.S. has a progressive tax system, the incentive remains to keep the income gap as wide as possible, and this is why: When the top 1% loses income share, the federal government loses twice that much in tax revenue. But when the top 1% gains income share, the federal government consequently gains twice that much in tax revenue.

 
Old 04-07-2014, 04:54 PM
 
39,128 posts, read 20,259,055 times
Reputation: 12691
Quote:
During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It's not hatred of the poor. It's hatred of the government policies that enable the poor to continue to act against their own best interest. Enabling ineptitude and dependency is anything but noble or caring.

I've already shown you that no one actually paid that rate. Furthermore, historical data proves that higher marginal tax rates yield less tax revenue as a percentage of GDP.
Amazing they actually think anyone paid that rate. You could tell them they didn't over and over again but they have air between their ears, it goes in and goes out ... no comprende
 
Old 04-07-2014, 06:18 PM
 
1,150 posts, read 1,426,548 times
Reputation: 1320
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan View Post
Contrary to what some may think here I actually agree with you in regards to welfare. There are those who truly need our help. Such as the sick, the elderly, and those who have fallen on hard times, because quite frankly s*** happens. I do not support handouts and continuing the enabling of folks on the system that have no desire to better themselves.

I also agree with you on Obamacare, as well as our foreign policy, and sending money to other nations when we have our own issues here at home. One thing you forgot, is corporate welfare. We should not have bailed out businesses on the taxpayer's dime that made bad business decisions.
I agree with everything you said. I think we should have social safety nets for those who truly need them like the sick, elderly, and people who are having trouble. I don't support handouts for those with no desire to better themselves either.

I also think that a woman should be forced to report her boyfriend's income on all applications for government assistance. I often see women living off their boyfriend's income while she sits on her ass making babies. She qualifies for assistance because she doesn't have to report his income because they are not married. Heck, she can even increase her assistance by refusing to make her boyfriend use a condom and getting knocked up time after time. This needs to stop.

I don't believe that any business should be deemed "too big to fail" either.
 
Old 04-07-2014, 06:22 PM
 
24,843 posts, read 32,302,155 times
Reputation: 11452
Quote:
Originally Posted by redroses777 View Post
I agree with everything you said. I think we should have social safety nets for those who truly need them like the sick, elderly, and people who are having trouble. I don't support handouts for those with no desire to better themselves either.

I also think that a woman should be forced to report her boyfriend's income on all applications for government assistance. I often see women living off their boyfriend's income while she sits on her ass making babies. She qualifies for assistance because she doesn't have to report his income because they are not married. Heck, she can even increase her assistance by refusing to make her boyfriend use a condom and getting knocked up time after time. This needs to stop.

I don't believe that any business should be deemed "too big to fail" either.
All household income is required to be reported......proving it was done can be difficult.
 
Old 04-07-2014, 06:53 PM
 
26,302 posts, read 12,782,834 times
Reputation: 12539
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Work that is worth the basic income amount received, however be aware that current labor markets define the value of that.
Soo...stop looking for work, and instead report to your government work center where they will what? Break rocks? Oh I know! They will replace a govt employee whose job it is to take care of a state park, who will then report to the government work center to....take care of the park?

I know you're all about this "you must work" thing...and I'm kinda in agreement, I want the able bodied to work, but I also believe we shouldn't work on breaking rocks, we should do something that matters. And thats the problem I see now-we don't have enough work. We're beginning to transition into a new economy where automation is better then humans.

Quote:
Mine haven't, but that's because we actually live in reality, don't have the false impression that anyone owes us anything simply because we exist, and we use current information and indicating trends for planning and decision-making purposes.
Notice something-only one of mine is a slacker. the others are extremely hard working, but your first assumption is that they think people "owe" them, or arent being "smart" about how they are looking for work.

Whats wrong with you? Seriously.

Quote:
Reduce their tax rates. Penalizing them for realizing gains is EXACTLY why they're hoarding and continuing to amass their wealth.
Ahhh yup somethings wrong with you. You actually believe that reducing the richest people tax rates will somehow cause the wealth to trickle down. Really?
Quote:
Also... consider very carefully this economist's conclusion:The liberal case for regressive taxation - Salon.com
And then you link to someone who you think is a credible source. OK So go read what ELSE he says:
Paul Ryan’s worst nightmare: Here’s the real way to cut poverty in America - Salon.com

So sure. read that article. Because the one you linked...isn't talking abut what you think it is. But you loved it because of what you thought the authors point was.

Quote:
As long as the U.S. has a progressive tax system, the incentive remains to keep the income gap as wide as possible, and this is why: When the top 1% loses income share, the federal government loses twice that much in tax revenue. But when the top 1% gains income share, the federal government consequently gains twice that much in tax revenue.
I've heard this nonsense before. Do you REALLY think the government cares about where its money comes from? This is nonsense. 50% of the top 1%'s income goes to the top .1%. If we hand money to the poor how many times does it get taxed on the way up? Which makes the govt more money?
 
Old 04-07-2014, 06:57 PM
 
26,302 posts, read 12,782,834 times
Reputation: 12539
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Amazing they actually think anyone paid that rate. You could tell them they didn't over and over again but they have air between their ears, it goes in and goes out ... no comprende
And you think the top .1% pays 35%?

No one thinks they paid that rate, but that WAS the rate, the EFFECTIVE rate was in the 45% range-twice as high as today. The attempt to deflect the underlying point by these kinds of "but that wasnt the rate!" is foolish. You're missing the entire POINT.

If it was set to 90% today how much do you think they would pay? 90%? Come on! probably about the same as back then-mid 40's

Someones got air in their heads allright when they miss that no one is actually expecting the rich to pay 90%....probably be paying about the same as back then, which is about 2X what they do now.
 
Old 04-07-2014, 07:03 PM
 
Location: mainland but born oahu
6,657 posts, read 6,400,874 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Amazing they actually think anyone paid that rate. You could tell them they didn't over and over again but they have air between their ears, it goes in and goes out ... no comprende
No they paid that rate only for the first few million. If you had read the link i gave it said that, now who isnt paying attention? Further i know majority paid it because alot of our state higher educational systems(college and universities) tuition was free only books and fees were charged. Now the only reason the cost of tuition has skyrocketted was because we startted receiving less tax money from the rich, and the schools had to make up the loss. Why i know its the rich not paying? Because the tax rates for middle class and poor kinda remained the same up intel recently.
 
Old 04-07-2014, 07:17 PM
 
Location: mainland but born oahu
6,657 posts, read 6,400,874 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by redroses777 View Post
I agree with everything you said. I think we should have social safety nets for those who truly need them like the sick, elderly, and people who are having trouble. I don't support handouts for those with no desire to better themselves either.

I also think that a woman should be forced to report her boyfriend's income on all applications for government assistance. I often see women living off their boyfriend's income while she sits on her ass making babies. She qualifies for assistance because she doesn't have to report his income because they are not married. Heck, she can even increase her assistance by refusing to make her boyfriend use a condom and getting knocked up time after time. This needs to stop.

I don't believe that any business should be deemed "too big to fail" either.
I just have a problem with you believeing the only corporate welfare was the bailout of the banks to this day we are paying billions yrly of tax money to the most able of us all.
 
Old 04-07-2014, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
32,980 posts, read 19,956,391 times
Reputation: 12881
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart View Post
I just have a problem with you believeing the only corporate welfare was the bailout of the banks to this day we are paying billions yrly of tax money to the most able of us all.
LOL Are you still here talking about it? Jesus HBH, I like you, but seriously, we got it.
 
Old 04-07-2014, 08:36 PM
 
66,240 posts, read 30,160,286 times
Reputation: 8607
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart View Post
there has been no talk of cutting welfare from the rich corporations which are the most able of everyone.
What corporate welfare? Do you mean not charging them so much tax? Remember that if we increase the costs of doing business, which includes raising corporate taxes, etc., those cost increases get passed along to everyone who buys corporations' goods and services. The end user/consumer always pays. Guess who gets hurt the most by higher prices on goods and services?
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.


Closed Thread

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 03:37 PM.

© 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