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.
If you are going to stop giving to the poor because of who they voted for, perhaps your heart was in a very wrong place to begin with.
Excellent point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1
I'm guessing you were just ANOTHER BIG SPENDER giving thousands to charites
I'm guessing s/he's a big talker who gave $25 once a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
With higher taxes there is no longer a need to give to the poor so now only worry about taking care of you and your family.
Why don't you wait to see what happens before turning your back on an entire group of people?
Quote:
There is no longer a need to contribute to charities.
I'm sure the hungry kids, the people who are too ill to care for themselves, the people dying of cancer or lung or heart disease, the cats and dogs in no-kill shelters, the people living in substandard housing, and the women escaping an abusive household will all be happy to hear this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
That bottom 50% who pay no taxes need to start paying taxes along with the rest of us.
Are you sure the 50 percent is all at the bottom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
Ahhh the tanning tax. Although few have noticed, it is a tax on white people.
It's a luxury tax. If you don't want to pay it, don't go to a tanning bed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
We have record setting numbers of people out of work....record setting numbers of people on welfare and out of work....record setting debt....failing schools....over crowded prisons....social security is on the verge of bankruptcy....
We didn't have all that before?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I don't mind giving to the church so they can give to poor in the community because they're not just giving to the lazy but if you take my money to give to the poor on welfare, I don't have it to give to the food pantry.
Where do you think the money you give to the church goes? I smell hypocrisy ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
To paraphase Regan, blaming doesn't fix it.
The stop doing it.
Quote:
Yes, I blame obama for not improving the situation in the 3.5 years he's had in office.
I see another problem here ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I think America is more likely to swallow a value added tax
A value added tax is regressive, which is less fair than a flat tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEternalSanctuaryMan
There is so much fat in those budgets that one can't seriously call them 'non-profits' so much as tax shelters with high executive salaries & dedicated fan bases won by brilliant marketing campaigns.
As an employee of a nonprofit organization, all I can say is ... I wish.
Quote:
If personal contributions died off, they would rely more on corporate partnerships & civic revenues and religious tithing.
Corporate partnerships are down, and they rarely benefit organizations that work with the truly poor. Also, where do you think the money from civic revenues and religious tithing comes from ... personal contributions, perhaps?
Quote:
Local charities can just get more federal & state & local funding
Nice deflection.
If you make affirmative breeding choices then others support you.
I didn't say I bear it alone, your kid's burden is shared by many.
My kids will be paying the burden of YOU and ME and many others when we retire. Just like we are paying the burden of those who went before us. I don't mind sharing that burden. And I feel no need to to be smug and self righteous while doing it. YMMV.
The return of the marriage penalty in 2013 for one.
And the higher taxes that will have to be put in place to pay the debt. You do realize we do have to, eventually, pay the bill, right? This is not rocket science. IF we keep borrowing money, taxes will have to go up to pay the bill. Period. IF not next year, maybe the year after or the year after. The longer we wait, the bigger the tax hike will have to be.
Where do YOU think the money will come from to pay the national debt? Are you expecting manna from heaven?
The marriage penalty affected 42% of married couples. And...... the people MOST affected are the lower income not the wealthy. Many married couples do not have to deal with the marriage penalty tax. In fact, some couples pay less than they would as single people making comparable amounts. This generally applies to those who have disparate incomes, such as a doctor and teacher. (I believe that this is your situation, Ivory, correct?). In general, the marriage penalty tax affects those couples who have roughly equal salaries.
The reality is that marriage has plenty of legal and financial benefits, including tax benefits. Even before Congress changed tax rules in 2001 to deal with the so-called marriage penalty, more married couples got a tax bonus from being married than paid a tax penalty:
51% of married couples paid less tax jointly than if they had not been married, according to a 1996 Congressional Budget Office analysis. The average amount these couples saved: $1,300.
42% of married taxpayers paid more by filing jointly than they would have if they'd remained single, the office said. The average penalty: $1,380.
Note that there are many financial benefits to marriage and that once gay marriage becomes legal, gays will be paying this *marriage penalty* in greater numbers than straight couples because often their incomes are more equal.
Tell me where your kids went to college. There are two colleges known to take NO federal money, including federal loan money. Methinks someone went to the University of North Carolina, which is a PUBLIC college that takes both state and federal money.
Sorry, I misunderstood your last post. Of course my kids attended a college that accepts Federal education dollars. I thought you were talking about individual Federal grants/loans and whether or not they received those. So yes, my kids did reap some benefit from those dollars.
The marriage penalty affected 42% of married couples. And...... the people MOST affected are the lower income not the wealthy. Many married couples do not have to deal with the marriage penalty tax. In fact, some couples pay less than they would as single people making comparable amounts. This generally applies to those who have disparate incomes, such as a doctor and teacher. (I believe that this is your situation, Ivory, correct?). In general, the marriage penalty tax affects those couples who have roughly equal salaries.
Note that there are many financial benefits to marriage and that once gay marriage becomes legal, gays will be paying this *marriage penalty* in greater numbers than straight couples because often their incomes are more equal.
My husband and I make almost exactly the same amount every year. And yes, we always used to get caught in the marriage penalty. And some years in the AMT as well. And we will again once the tax cuts expire.
I'm sure the hungry kids, the people who are too ill to care for themselves, the people dying of cancer or lung or heart disease, the cats and dogs in no-kill shelters, the people living in substandard housing, and the women escaping an abusive household will all be happy to hear this.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Obama will take care of them with more tax dollars. And the problem is?
That bottom 50% who pay no taxes need to start paying taxes along with the rest of us. I'll take my tax increase but they need to be in the game too.
And the people who are the takers, you know the obamaphone types need to learn how to fish for themselves and get their butts off the government dole. They are nothing but an expense that the rest of us have been paying for forever.
The fact that most people who don’t owe federal income tax in a given year pay substantial amounts of other taxes — and also are net income taxpayers over time — belies the claim that households that do not owe income tax in a given year will form bad policy judgments because they “don’t have any skin in the game.”
Furthermore, although the federal tax system is progressive overall, state and local tax systems are regressive and undo a significant share of that progressivity. There is nothing wrong with having one part of the overall tax system shield low- and moderate-income households, who pay substantial amounts of other taxes and generally pay federal income tax as well in other years.
To substantially increase the share of households that owe federal income tax, policymakers would have to take such steps as: lowering the personal exemption or standard deduction — which would tax many low-income working families into, or deeper into, poverty; weakening the EITC or Child Tax Credit, which would significantly increase child poverty while reducing incentives for work over welfare; or paring back the tax exclusion for Social Security benefits, which would subject more seniors with modest fixed incomes to the income tax.
Social security while it is a retirement system is also a ponzi scheme. The young pay in more than we older folks who are now receiving benefits did. The scheme was built on the fact that there would *always* be more young workers than there were retirees. Unfortunately, with boomers retiring, that is no longer the case. We (dh and I) are fortunate that we had other retirement options. I would not mind getting less in social security *if* we could allow those who really need it to continue to get the benefits they are entitled to and have those of us who do have other savings and other income to take less.
Yes, I blame obama for not improving the situation in the 3.5 years he's had in office. If he can't make ANY improvements with 8 TRILLION dollars spent, what can he do? The situation is worse today than it was when Bush left office but now the national debt has doubled. Wow....that's really something to be impressed with....
You forget that
1. The economy tanked under Bush and came back under Obama (despite the fact that it did not come back far enough - 3.5 years is not enough.
2. The housing bubble and other problems were caused by too little regulation and oversight.
3. The slow recovery was partly caused by obstructionism among the Republicans. President Obama was not allowed to spend as much as he should have been on Keynesian efforts to help stimulate demand. Had he been allowed to do what was needed, the economy would now be in better shape and there would be more revenue to help pay down the debt.
Social security while it is a retirement system is also a ponzi scheme. The young pay in more than we older folks who are now receiving benefits did. The scheme was built on the fact that there would *always* be more young workers than there were retirees. Unfortunately, with boomers retiring, that is no longer the case. We (dh and I) are fortunate that we had other retirement options. I would not mind getting less in social security *if* we could allow those who really need it to continue to get the benefits they are entitled to and have those of us who do have other savings and other income to take less.
The biggest problem with SS is that it was designed with the intent that most people would die before collecting a dime. The average life expectancies of both women and men in 1935 were below the age of 65. SS was supposed to provide for the very few who outlived the odds.
Contrast that with today when we have people collecting SS for 10, 20 or even 30 years. They don't pay in anything close to the benefits they ultimately collect. So we've been reliant on the workers to subsidize those benefits. Now there are fewer and fewer workers and more and more retirees. Not a sustainable system.
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.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
This is not rocket science. IF we keep borrowing money, taxes will have to go up to pay the bill. Period. IF not next year, maybe the year after or the year after. The longer we wait, the bigger the tax hike will have to be. 
The situation is worse today than it was when Bush left office but now the national debt has doubled. Wow....that's really something to be impressed with....
