Is a Flat Tax a Better Solution for the Economy? (Iraq, Reagan)
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.
And that data isn't broken down in to subsets that might skew the data, such as age, education level, etc.
If those who receive public assistance bear exponentially more children into poverty, does it matter what their age or education level is? They're dooming children at birth to a life of struggle and hardship.
So... that makes it okay for them to exponentially breed more babies into poverty? Really? Do you not understand how compounding works?
If those who receive public assistance bear exponentially more children into poverty, does it matter what their age or education level is? They're dooming children at birth to a life of struggle and hardship.
Actually, my point was that being on welfare might not be the prime reason for the birth rates. Without the ability to perform a regression, we cannot say if the two are directly connected, only that the two seem to be connected. The real problem might be low education levels (women with low education levels do have more children than those with higher education levels), and that problem might be masked by the fact that individuals with low education levels tend to be impoverished and are more likely to be able to receive government assistance.
Actually, my point was that being on welfare might not be the prime reason for the birth rates. Without the ability to perform a regression, we cannot say if the two are directly connected, only that the two seem to be connected. The real problem might be low education levels (women with low education levels do have more children than those with higher education levels), and that problem might be masked by the fact that individuals with low education levels tend to be impoverished and are more likely to be able to receive government assistance.
None of which matters when considering bearing children. You can either afford to provide for them, or you can't. If you're on public assistance and clearly can't, you have NO business having children at the rate of 3 times that of those who don't receive public assistance.
It would help if the government would stop PAYING the welfare-dependent to breed.
The crux of the problem is how our taxpayer money is being used.
Generations of investigative reporters tell us so much is wasted and the hungry feds, totally dependant on our taxes, have no intention of cleaning up its act.
To proclaim the need to raise tax is beyond bold and demonstrates an entitlement attitude.
Charlie Rangel has headed the ways and means committe which covers the tax code. How large is the tax code and what percent of regs apply to the average taxpayer?
Why did the head of the treasury screw up his tax returns?
Why did Charlie Rangle screw up his tax returns?
that should tell you the code is designed primarily for business and political cronies. Like Pelosi, exemption from labor regs for Dole.
If some version of a flat tax were created for the avearge citizen and a more complex set of regs for business, we'd be in a better place except for the downstream waste once in the hnads of the feds.
To argue about how you are going to place your head down on the executioners chopping block is the stuff of the mindless without a direct link to a discussion on government waste.
And this is just one portion of what needs a serious look when discussing government waste:
It is a conversation on morality because $1000 means something different to the bottom 1% than to the top 1%. So, while a flat tax is both easier to understand and more equal in terms of % of income paid, it is not more equal in terms of ability to pay. So, a person who earns $20k would pay $2k at a 10% flat tax, while a person who earns $1 million would pay out $100,000. That $2k means a lot more to the person earning $20k than the $100,000 does to the millionaire. Because of this, it becomes a question of fairness, of ability to pay.
Actually, based on the arguments in the C-D forums, a lot of members believe hard work is the determining factor in one's financial success. It is as if they have discounted concepts such as networks and luck: luck to have good genetics, or to be born in to the right family (does anyone really think a guy like Romney would have gotten where he was without his father, his father's money, or his father's connections?), to be born in the right area (a brilliant child in an awful neighborhood or school might not go anywhere, by no fault of the child).
Couldn't rep you again, but this sums up my position, as well.
I have a good job and I make a fair amount of money. I was in the "right place at the right time" and learned a niche skill that I marketed myself on. Luck and network both playing a part there.
It is a conversation on morality because $1000 means something different to the bottom 1% than to the top 1%. So, while a flat tax is both easier to understand and more equal in terms of % of income paid, it is not more equal in terms of ability to pay. So, a person who earns $20k would pay $2k at a 10% flat tax, while a person who earns $1 million would pay out $100,000. That $2k means a lot more to the person earning $20k than the $100,000 does to the millionaire. Because of this, it becomes a question of fairness, of ability to pay.
Not necessarily. You have no idea what the expenses are of any of the parties involved regardless of how much they earn. How many times have we seen those who seemingly earn a lot of money declare bankruptcy? Meanwhile, someone who earns a modest salary may be making carefully considered life and financial decisions and are a textbook example of "The Millionaire Next Door" (read the book). In that case, the one earning the modest salary has the ability to pay more.
Not necessarily. You have no idea what the expenses are of any of the parties involved regardless of how much they earn. How many times have we seen those who seemingly earn a lot of money declare bankruptcy? Meanwhile, someone who earns a modest salary may be making carefully considered life and financial decisions and are a textbook example of "The Millionaire Next Door" (read the book). In that case, the one earning the modest salary has the ability to pay more.
It is a safe assumption that a 10% flat tax will impact the ability to buy necessities of someone making $20K/year far more than someone making $200K/year. If the person making $200K can't pay their mortgage/rent or put food on the table because of a 10% tax, that's likely their own fault - not so for the person making $20K.
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.