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.
People who own property or a large number of possessions benefit a great deal more then someone who has nothing.
Actually I don't think property or number of possessions has anything to do with benefitting from the military. When you're dead, you're dead no matter how many possessions you have.
Not all benefit equally. I would add, some benefit more from military spending and it is usually not the low wage earners (they tend to be the sacrificial lambs, often).
Of course, not all benefit equally. Where in my post did I say they did? But that doesn't change the idea that a large number are not contributing anything for what benefits they do get.
Actually I don't think property or number of possessions has anything to do with benefitting from the military. When you're dead, you're dead no matter how many possessions you have.
Loss of life is the only thing poor and rich people share. However, who says everyone would be dead if we got invaded?
What I can say is that large amounts of assets would either be destroyed or confiscated.
Medicare- 484 billion (this is above and beyond the contributions of the FSMI trust fund, the actual spending is nearly 270 billion more)
SS- 778 billion (actual spending is about 200 billion more without contributions from the trust fund)
Pensions for Federal employees (not military veterans)- 127 billion
(notice the two things people ***** about the most, cash welfare payments and section 8, dont even come to 1/3 of what we spend on retired federal employees a year, even if you add in food stamps, it just barely surpasses retired federal employees)
So, lets see, our yearly spending on old people comes to
1.959 trillion
Our yearly spending on people with low incomes?
478.5 billion (which is less then we spend in medicare ALONE, even AFTER the trust fund contributions)
We spend 160 billion a month on old people. At that rate, old people would have spent the entire amount we spend on poor people in 2.99 months.
Again, if you want to know who is sucking out all "your tax dollars" and you dont want to blame the DoD, instead of blaming "welfare queens", you can turn your head towards Granny Beatrice, because her never ending quest to stay alive 3 more weeks is costing us a fortune.
This is nothing more than a bunch of absolutely asinine talking points. Social security is not a government service. The old people you speak of in disgust have paid into it for years and now they are collecting. The DoD is a vital government agency providing a service to our country. What vital service are the "welfare queens" providing?
Of course, not all benefit equally. Where in my post did I say they did? But that doesn't change the idea that a large number are not contributing anything for what benefits they do get.
I think a household earning $25K is more interested in social security and social safety nets, and local protections/services (paid via sales tax) than military adventures on foreign soil in the name of property protection that it doesn't have. It is why y'all carefully spell "federal income tax" and ignore all other taxes that they pay?
How can anyone logically argue for the rich to "pay their fair share" of federal income taxes when in fact 47% of American's pay ZERO federal income taxes?
Yes, most people pay payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc). Those monies go to fund specific priorities, so there's no need for the obtuse to come forth and deflect. We're talking Federal INCOME taxes.....the money that goes to fund the public goods and services that we American's consume.
How is it "FAIR" that millions of a American's pay ZERO in light of the current class warfare schtick being pushed by the Left?
Where's the "fairness?"
I take it you are proposing a sharp tax hike for them?
The top 10% of earners (those earning $113,799 or more) paid 69.94% of federal taxes and earned 45.77% of AGI. As said, those numbers come down significantly when state and local taxes, which are highly regressive, are added.
Note that the bottom 50% of taxpayers only earn 12.75% of national income -- this is the group the GOP wants to skin.
This is nothing more than absolutely asinine talking points. Social security is not a government service. The old people you speak of in disgust have paid into it for years and now they are collecting. The DoD is a vital government agency providing a service to our country. What vital service are the "welfare queens" providing?
1. Those people "drawing SS" are collectively drawing more then they ever put in, even factoring in a reasonable rate of return. They are living way longer then the system ever intended.
2. Because they are living way longer, their medical bills have already destroyed medicare, and that system is hemorraging money.
3. The DoD is providing a vital service? Like what? World Policeman? By the way, I seriously doubt that paying $26 per case of soda is serving any "vital service" other then to the owners of huge no bid defense contractors
4. "Welfare Queens" are providing as much service as a 92 year old chewing 25k dollars worth of medication a year while sitting in a chair, stairing at a wall and drooling on himself. Only difference is that the Welfare Queen will eventually exhaust her lifetime benefits. The 92 year old is the gift that just keeps giving.
First of all, the number of "millionaires" not paying Federal Income taxes are small. If they don't pay taxes, then they should. I spare no ire towards them, either, so your point is moot and deflective.
So, you're defining classes of millionaires versus non-millionaires? And ignoring the millionaires who happen to be among those who don't owe federal income tax because they are fewer in numbers?
Quote:
The OP is directed towards the 47% who don't pay federal income taxes. Just because they happened to be low income instead of millionaires is 100% irrelevant. They should have skin in the game. I have not waivered on that point either.
Skin in which game? Besides, I asked if you included EVERYBODY instead of engaging in a class warfare. The intent is clear: latter.
Quote:
That you're being obtuse about the class warfare game being waged by the left is of no concern to me.
You'd be more credible, if you didn't use the premise you accuse others of. "Opposition Research" (AKA "oppo") is a thriving business, but you sound more like the intended audience than someone like Lee Atwater who was a master of the art (but eventually grew up and regretted a lack of ethics in his life on his death bed).
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.
