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.
Everyone's 'share' of income is more than what they pay in federal taxes.
That's not what I said. I said their share of the income is much higher than the share of the federal tax revenue they pay, about 4 times as high to be exact.
When people stop being paid slave wages they will then have the ability to pay more taxes.
When lower-income people stop over-reproducing, they'll stop glutting the market with the multitudes of no/low-skilled labor that is keeping their wages depressed.
I agree with you 100 percent but I don't see how anything will change when the libs keep crying for the poor instead of requiring them to work for the handouts they receive.
I assume you feel as harshly towards the handouts for the rich too? They get far more of them than the 50% gets so I would think your outrage is great towards them....
You'll find that opinions on that will vary, WIDELY. Who makes the value judgment on what type (and cost) of food, clothing, shelter each person is allowed to have?
Apparently, from the numerous threads here, Conservatives are the people who make the value judgements.
I'm sure you know the difference between wants and needs.
Needs:
Food (enough quantity and quality to keep a body healthy)
Clothing (decent-looking clothing; a coat and gloves for winter, boots for rain and snow)
Shelter (a house with electricity, running water, heat in the winter)
Education (affordable)
Wants:
Lobster, crown roast (and a good wine to go with that!), Patronize restaurants to avoid dirtying up that designer kitchen
Haute Couture
5,000 SF, Five bedroom, four bath house for three people
Ivy League
Apparently, from the numerous threads here, Conservatives are the people who make the value judgements.
Why should either liberals or conservatives get to make the value judgments?
Quote:
Needs:
Food (enough quantity and quality to keep a body healthy)
Clothing (decent-looking clothing; a coat and gloves for winter, boots for rain and snow)
Shelter (a house with electricity, running water, heat in the winter)
Education (affordable)
And who decides what's adequate for the above described needs? For example, if there's not enough low cost housing to go around and some people are therefore forced to live in more expensive housing, they can't get a deduction for the extra housing expense even though through no fault of their own they have to live in more expensive housing?
Saying one shouldn't be taxed on what they need for life... food, clothing, shelter, utilities, etc., isn't as cut and dried as you'd like to think.
When lower-income people stop over-reproducing, they'll stop glutting the market with the multitudes of no/low-skilled labor that is keeping their wages depressed.
That is NOT what is happening in the real world, though, in case you missed it.
The USA may as well have open borders at this point; corporations and medium-sized businesses are loving it. Plenty of people who will work for less than the paltry minimum wage. It's all well and good when people are talented enough to make a lot of money. Good for them! However, many of them made that climb on the backs of the working poor. BECAUSE THEY CAN! THEY FEEL ENTITLED TO DO SO!
And people with your mindset enable them every day, all the while moaning about some of your tax money being distributed to those same working poor.
I wish against wish that you could understand how very wrong you are.
I'll just say you have no idea what in the hell you are talking about and many business owners are posting on this very thread in direct opposition to what you are saying.
No one said business is responsible for "social engineering" (whatever the **** that means). But if you want a health economy where workers can purchase goods without going into debt the workers need a livable wage. A SMART business owner knows that and invests in her workers. It is a fact that businesses who pay more to their employees not only perform very well but the communities they reside in flourish..
"I wish against wish that you could understand how very wrong you are.'
Oh my God, another, I am the smartest person on here and you are the stupidest"
Being you claim to be such an expert, tell us, how many successful businesses have you started and owned?
That's not what I said. I said their share of the income is much higher than the share of the federal tax revenue they pay, about 4 times as high to be exact.
When lower-income people stop over-reproducing, they'll stop glutting the market with the multitudes of no/low-skilled labor that is keeping their wages depressed.
Sooooo...you're worried and all upset about people that make only 11.1% of the income? Think that through some.
It's not baloney. I posted facts. You cannot refute any of them.
Here they are, again:
1) The bottom 20% is over-reproducing, thereby forcing downward pressure on their wages. It's a supply and demand thing:
Birth rates aren't static, I've told you this ad nauseum. Also, it's better to be growing than shrinking demographically. Furthermore, this is a global economy, so there are A LOT of poor people in the world pushing down wages by your logic. However, that's not the full or close to full picture as regulations (or lack of) and technology also push down wages. Productivity is at record levels but that's not trickling down in the form of better or wages or benefits domestically.
Also, wages and benefits as % of GDP have been stagnate for decades, what's your explanation there? More of the "teh poorz are 2 blame". Sucks the world is more complicated than what you believe it is.
Quote:
2) The U.S.'s progressive tax system (European countries actually have regressive tax systems) creates a perverse incentive for our government to promote maximum income inequality:
Furthermore, in regards to #2, Federal Government politicians seek to maximize tax revenue to spend to buy votes. It's simple math. Which group has more votes?
50 people earning $20,000 each and receiving taxpayer-funded public assistance?
Or
2 people earning $500,000 each?
Extrapolate that onto the U.S. population in which 47% pay no federal income tax whatsoever yet receive the same government services and benefits that everyone else does, with the added benefits of one or more forms of taxpayer-funded public assistance for most of the bottom 25%.
Income inequality will exist either way. It's not as simple as this is America's tax system, this is Europe's tax system and Europe has less income inequality therefore a regressive system is better and doesn't "create a perverse incentive" for government.
You have a very narrow view of how it works. The folks who pay no income tax don't actually vote as much as there wealthier counterparts so it's not all that large of an advantage as you think or purport.
It's all about buying votes. Under our current progressive federal tax system, the only way to maximize tax revenue to do that is to maximize the income of those who are taxed the most: the top 1%.
It's not about buying votes as I've demonstrated above, or if you want to make that argument then anything a politician at anytime in history does for his constituents or base is about buying votes. Can't have one without the other.
How is that not creating a glut of no/low-skilled workers?
Maybe we should educate them somehow.... So we don't have to continually pay them welfare.
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.
