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.
I and all of my co workers are under 40,000$ a year pay scale. most of them that are on government aid have new trucks,cars I call that extravagant,. I DRIVE MY 3000$ car cause that is all I can really afford without making the tax payers pay for a better car.
Anecdotal, but the cost of a new car, while large up-front, is often cheaper in the long run than buying a used car and having to repair it every 3-6 months, or continually repairing a car that's in need of--constant repair. The phrase "cut your losses" comes to mind.
But again, your story is anecdotal.
Quote:
perhaps I AM! a little jealous. but I just cant bring myself to beg for somting I dont really need.
Then don't. Save your money.
Quote:
now you are talking 50,000$ that to me is a luxurie. people making that kind of dough dont need any help what so ever!!
Your sarcasm doesn't go by un-noticed. The taxes we're talking about here are generally for people making over 250,000, but could be as low as 100,000, as that 100,000 represents the top 20% in control of 83% of the U.S. wealth. However, the majority of that wealth is still concentrated in the top 10, 5, and 1% of the country. 1%, 3,000,000 people, hold onto 40% of the wealth of the country.
You're in the lower-middle-class, working-poor depending on dependents. At 40,000, you're over-taxed as well. The entire bracket between ~30%-80% of the population by wealth is overtaxed, because the welathy, the top twenty and importantly, top ten percent, pay less taxes proportionally than their wealth allows.
Combine that with the fact that most poor and middle class have all their wealth tied into their homes, where as the wealthy do not. When something like the housing market crashes, the vast majority of American citizens lose big.
You're wrong. This flat-tax you suggest is actually disadvantageous to those who don't make a lot of money. Dollar for dollar, it matters more to those who make less than those who make more.
$1000 to someone making $10,000 is a tremendous amount of money. That's $9,000 to buy food, put a roof over ones head, and for some, raise a family.
Contrast that with someone making $1,000,000, and shelling out only $100,000. The $900,000 will build a house, buy a few cars, and operate a small business for two years with zero income. And still have money left over to go to the movies once a weekend.
Flat taxes will never work unless you plan to begin them above $60,000. There is a reason there is a progressive tax, and not because it's a "progressive" idea.
Really? You mean having them pay that much taxes would hurt them? Odd, maybe... and I am just doing some random thinking here, maybe... we should lower the taxes by reducing the amount of services the government provides so peoples taxes won't be so high? Maybe?
You know why people suggest such tax plans? Because it makes everyone carry the burden for increasing government cost and expansion. This way, you don't have people voting in expense after expense for their own benefit at the cost of others. When it costs them more, they will feel it as well rather than passing it off to someone else to pay the bill.
Really? You mean having them pay that much taxes would hurt them? Odd, maybe... and I am just doing some random thinking here, maybe... we should lower the taxes by reducing the amount of services the government provides so peoples taxes won't be so high? Maybe?
The services help people get out of poverty, to become productive members of society, better our nation, and perhaps important to you--PAY TAXES.
Quote:
You know why people suggest such tax plans? Because it makes everyone carry the burden for increasing government cost and expansion.
The last forty years of supply-side economics has allowed the shift of the tax burden from the wealthy (where it belonged) to the middle class, which has killed our spending power, and ground the economy to a halt.
When that happens, the people with enough money, savings, or enough luck are moving up. The majority are moving down into poverty because the rich doesn't want a middle-class: they want workers. Dumb, slaves who are easily replaced.
Quote:
This way, you don't have people voting in expense after expense for their own benefit at the cost of others. When it costs them more, they will feel it as well rather than passing it off to someone else to pay the bill.
That is the entire point from the start!
The entire point is to remove the tax burden from the middle-class, redistribute that onto the wealthiest elite of this country (many of which have no problem with this), and to apply social programs that lower poverty and educate the public.
Due to the rapid change in our economic base, we need an educated workforce to follow suite. Public education is great--until it no longer pays for post-secondary education, which is what we really need. People are working too many hours and don't have enough time to get an education to make more money, and to bring greater benefits to the country. We aren't getting the full value of our welfare because we don't have enough of it. Instead of cutting welfare programs (which the majority of people use and then leave in short periods of time), we should be investing it into post-secondary education: really anything skill-based, that will allow people to contribute to society and pay taxes.
So yeah, you can go ahead and cut the parsley from the plate, but you're biggest budget is social security, and defense, and one of those programs is paid for with its own tax, and the other kills people.
So let me know what you think we should do about that.
But they don't. Their income tax is the largest burden (barely), but their overall taxes paid aren't. With 83% of the monetary wealth in the United States, they pay just 68% of all federal taxes.
It isn't that it doesn't affect them, it's that the value of a dollar to someone making 20,000 and someone making 20,000,000 is greater to the person making less. As I've stated a few dozen times by this point, costs do not scale. Bread is 5% of my total income, where-as for the millionaire, it's .00005% of his\her income.
They don't pay their fair share, which I've outlined in one of the two long posts I've had up there.
Speaking of hogwash, this is ignorant and naive. No-one expects cancer, but that will bankrupt a number of families. Suddenly, all your hard work and opportunity is replaced with vomiting in the middle of the night and a disability check, and no insurance company will touch you.
I'm starting to get blue. The amount of luck that Bill Gates had to make millions is extraordinary. The amount of luck George Soros had to break the bank of England was extraordinary. He predicted an outcome that had no guarantee of success. Realistically, few people make tons of money because they are fortuned by luck, circumstance, and a little bit of skill and knowledge. Very, very few people have rags-to-riches stories. We need to stop championing them.
With attitudes like yours, I'm glad you aren't an American.
You're wrong. This flat-tax you suggest is actually disadvantageous to those who don't make a lot of money. Dollar for dollar, it matters more to those who make less than those who make more.
$1000 to someone making $10,000 is a tremendous amount of money. That's $9,000 to buy food, put a roof over ones head, and for some, raise a family.
Contrast that with someone making $1,000,000, and shelling out only $100,000. The $900,000 will build a house, buy a few cars, and operate a small business for two years with zero income. And still have money left over to go to the movies once a weekend.
Flat taxes will never work unless you plan to begin them above $60,000. There is a reason there is a progressive tax, and not because it's a "progressive" idea.
You don't get it do you? Not one little bit. Being poor is SUPPOSED to be painful. That's the motivation to excel and become, well, NOT POOR. The more you enable poverty, the more poverty you'll get, and I suspect that is your goal after all. Admit it, you don't want America and Americans to excel, you just want it to take a massive nose-dive into the concrete.
You don't get it do you? Not one little bit. Being poor is SUPPOSED to be painful. That's the motivation to excel and become, well, NOT POOR. The more you enable poverty, the more poverty you'll get
Very true. The birth rate for women on public assistance is 3 times that of women NOT on public assistance.
Higher taxes on their income could make up for the difference, or you can close their loopholes, and increase their taxes where they are deficient, like their payroll taxes, and capital gain taxes.
Quote:
Doesn't matter. The multi-million dollar pensions they posted are a matter of public record. Look them up. They're accurate.
Cite it. I don't see a mandate for social welfare programs.
Where do we start. First, he starts the entire article off with the bastardization of a common practice--rounding up. He anecdotally tells a story of a teacher who sent in a letter about how she has worked 30 years and...HOLD YOUR HORSES, She's only worked 29 years. Clearly a grand scandal is taking place.
The author is complaining about sick days. Literally. Because teachers have in their contracts paid sick leave, he's throwing a fit. As a result, some teachers are getting decent pensions for when they retire.
So, what does he do, tells a singular, demonzing side of the story. He takes particular attention to the ability to "buy" credit years. Never mind that this practice goes on in every state, and that means every state pays pensions in the same way that Illinois is paying pensions, which means that every time Illinois pays a pension for time not spent in Illinois, some other teacher in another state is getting paid the same way.
This isn't evidence, it's a misinformed talking point.
Moving on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaTrang
You don't get it do you? Not one little bit. Being poor is SUPPOSED to be painful. That's the motivation to excel and become, well, NOT POOR.
And what makes you think people want to be poor, or aren't motivated to not be poor? Again, the fallacy that people are where they are because they are lazy.
Go earn less than 20,000 for four years, and you cannot accept any kind of welfare. You cannot move in with family. they already live with you and you're supporting them. You can't move out of your city. You can't get another job. You can't do anything that the working poor already can't do.
Then come back, if you haven't starved to death, and tell me how you fared without any assistance.
Quote:
The more you enable poverty, the more poverty you'll get,
These programs don't "enable poverty," they reduce it. The vast majority of welfare users are on it for a matter of months before leaving.
Quote:
and I suspect that is your goal after all. Admit it, you don't want America and Americans to excel, you just want it to take a massive nose-dive into the concrete.
No, I'm not conservative, I realize the importance of a strong people for a strong nation, and as such, I want to enable them in every way possible to get out of poverty, to get an education, and to contribute to this nation. The evidence shows resoundingly that welfare programs help far more than they hurt.
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.
