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.
That is the hilarious thing here. . acting as if sex is somehow not connected to birth and that by just making the births less profitable we can magically stop people from having sex
at the same time, most Republicans are against the very things that lower the birth rate (birth control and abortion).
You left out one they don't support that would lower birth rates.....Education
Uhmmm, No offense but first, where do you get the assumption that if one is poor they are irresponsible, not productive or not contributing to society?
They're net takers, not net contributors. The IRS data is pretty explicit on that fact.
Quote:
2nd would it be safe to say that a majority of the people in this country are either in poverty or close to it or just struggling to pay the bills? If so why?
Because we provide financial incentives to those who do little more than breed. So breed they do. The dependent class is growing exponentially.
Quote:
3rd The problem with your argument is, could the huge rise in population have something to do with the fact that people are also living alot longer?
How does that make those who receive public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who don't?
Quote:
So your solution is to outlaw the poor from populating?
Outlaw? No. Stop providing financial incentives for irresponsible behavior? Yes.
How scary will it be when the dependent class is so large, it can no longer be supported? What do you think happens then?
You are looking at the problem backwards. How is it that the lower class segment of the population is growing, the middle class is shrinking, and yet the richest in society and the corporations are gaining more wealth even through the recession. Not just gaining wealth, but record amounts of it. They need to be taxed at a much higher rate, and that money needs to go back into things such as education so that we may see the middle class segment grow again and the lower class shrink. That is a real solution to breaking the cycle.
If what you say were true, the top 1% would have a lower ACTUAL effective federal income tax rate than those who make less money. We know what you suggest isn't true because the IRS publishes the ACTUAL average effective federal income tax rates. Look again:
Please, please, PLEASE... STOP falling for the manipulative propaganda BS you're being spoon-fed and which you've attempted to parrot in your post.
LOOK at the actual IRS data. The IRS's FACTS tell the truth.
Funny how you did not read the two sentence response I made with comprehension, then made the same argument that I refuted in those two sentences. So I will reiterate to highlight my own POV - You are speaking of income tax. Income is money earned from a job. I will repeat again that the people in the 1% do not earn the majority of their money from income. They earn it from investments (stocks, bonds, real estate, non-traditional assets like art, antiques, gold, etc). These investments are not taxed like a middle or upper income person's income, therefore the 1% have a tax loophole due to the fact that they do not actually earn the majority of their wealth via income unlike small business owners, professional workers, blue collar workers, or the working poor.
You are looking at the problem backwards. How is it that the lower class segment of the population is growing
They're given financial incentives to breed.
Quote:
the middle class is shrinking
They're not given as many financial incentives to breed
Quote:
and yet the richest in society and the corporations are gaining more wealth even through the recession
Not true. They've lost wealth share:
Quote:
"...income inequality has mainly gone up and down with the stock market since the late 1980s, with no discernible long-term trend.
This CBO report does confirm one ongoing trend: greater redistribution through the tax code. Progressivity of federal income taxes is at a record high. Effective income tax rates have gone negative for the bottom 40 percent of households and are approaching zero for the 20 percent of households considered the “middle class.†In contrast, tax rates on the top 1 percent of households have remained high at about 21 percent. As a result, the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent has increased dramatically since 1979, reaching 38.7 percent in 2009. The top 20 percent of households now pay more than 94 percent of income taxes, roughly matching the record high set in 2008.
You know not of which you speak. The REAL problem is we have too few supporting way too many. ACTUAL average effective federal income tax rates:
Top 0.1%: 22.84%
Top 1%: 23.39%
Top 5%: 20.64%
And then a HUGE effective tax rate drop-off below the top 5%...
Top 5-10%: 11.98%
Top 10-25%: 8.70%
Top 25-50%: 6.01% (middle class)
Bottom 50%: 2.37% Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Funny how you did not read the two sentence response I made with comprehension, then made the same argument that I refuted in those two sentences. So I will reiterate to highlight my own POV - You are speaking of income tax. Income is money earned from a job. I will repeat again that the people in the 1% do not earn the majority of their money from income. They earn it from investments (stocks, bonds, real estate, non-traditional assets like art, antiques, gold, etc). These investments are not taxed like a middle or upper income person's income,
Investment income IS income and IS taxed. Whoever has investment income pays INCOME TAX on it.
How on earth do you not know that?
The IRS data on ACTUAL effective income tax rates INCLUDES taxes paid on investment income.
They(low IQ) need to realize they do not have what it takes and take their proper place in society. There are jobs for these people, just not as CEO's of fortune 500 companies.
If that were only true, I would agree with you. But reality is another matter, and what we have today is a very complex set of problems that there is no silver bullet cure. We don't just have a group of incompetents that can't take care of themselves ... but also those too lazy to bother trying, along with people that through no fault of their own, are victims of misfortune, and also victims of a fraudulent system that serves the interests of the top 1%, at the expense of the other 99. The reality is, there are a lot of good, hard working, intelligent people out there having a hard time making it, and when that group is under such pressure, only makes it that much more hopeless for the not as intelligent but willing worker to make it.
The socialist-communist-leftist solution is to provide for every need of those in need, in an ill conceived cradle to grave system which cannot be sustained. The problems with such a philosophy are many ... none greater than this being an unworkable and unfair alternative that eliminates the need to address the causes of economic hardship, while simply treating symptoms, by passing out band aids in the form of unlimited welfare, food stamps, healthcare and subsidized housing. Band aids cannot cure gaping wounds, and leads only to greater problems by neglecting effective measures.
For the last several decades, we've allowed our manufacturing to be steadily moved off shore, without consideration of what will become of those who's abilities are not suited to higher end professional careers. Both skilled and unskilled labor jobs traditionally supplied through manufacturing are gone, but the people needing jobs were left out in the cold. and reliant on public assistance to survive. Rather than fix the problem, the choice has been to just feed and clothe and house those who have been phased out of the workforce. But now, even many of the skilled tech jobs have been outsourced and moved off shore, creating a new class of displaced workers for whom the aforementioned low skill, no skill displaced worker has no chance of successfully competing with. And the problem is growing .... cashier jobs being replaced with automated checkout lines ... illegals providing the unskilled and tradesman labor ... and the displaced white collar workers now taking jobs that were traditionally held by those unskilled blue collar types, simply because they can't find suitable professional positions in this contracting economy.
So, yes .. we need to find an alternative to the welfare state that involves people working and providing a service to earn their keep, but the first step is to ensure that such work is out there and available first. Simply complaining that we cannot afford this endless welfare may be true, but doesn't eliminate the needy ... they will still be there, and in need.
We need a top down restructuring of our economic system that provides greater opportunity for all .. then we can demand that people step up and take care of themselves.
They're given financial incentives to breed. They're not given as many financial incentives to breed
Since when do we pay people to have sex?
Last time I checked, only hookers get paid to have sex
Lets get straight. . .no one needs a financial incentive to have sex. . .people will have sex regardless.
that is what is so insane here. . .this cherry pick reverse argument that starts with the unwanted babies instead of the ACT that commits them
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.
