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.
By April 21, to group says, Americans will have made enough to pay the $3 trillion in federal taxes and $1.5 trillion in state taxes — more than they will spend on food clothing and housing combined...But hey big government can solve this, right leftist?
The majority or rude and deflective remarks your post will generate won't come from those who pay Fed and State income tax.
No but talking about ending handouts and welfare but don't want to cut corporate welfare is hateing
No, it isn't. And I've stated I'm good with ending corporate subsidies. Just don't whine and complain about the higher prices that will result, which of course will hurt no-/low-income people the most.
No, it isn't. And I've stated I'm good with ending corporate subsidies. Just don't whine and complain about the higher prices that will result, which of course will hurt no-/low-income people the most.
So if we cut the handouts to the poor you can't complain about the rioting, and starvation that would result?
I think underlying this is the fairly accurate observation by most that while their parents or grandparents shared in the growing wealth of the nation as a whole, thats no longer true for them. That while corporate profits are at a all time high, the share paid to the people doing the work is at a fairly low % of the income coming in.
And then the viewpoints of "greed is good" and "the poor deserve it" kinda...bothers people.
How about we stop subsidizing things like gasoline and milk and give that money back to taxpayers? Sure, the prices will rise to $8/gallon, but at least we'll be paying less in taxes.
I don't drink milk. So why should I be forced to subsidize other's milk consumption? If you can't afford it, you shouldn't consume it, and you CERTAINLY shouldn't expect ME to facilitate your dairy habit. By the way, most doctors recommend that adults refrain from regular milk consumption. There are many other, better, and healthier sources of calcium available... And at prices that do not necessitate my tax dollars to consume
No, it isn't. And I've stated I'm good with ending corporate subsidies. Just don't whine and complain about the higher prices that will result, which of course will hurt no-/low-income people the most.
I say let Democrats have their way. Then we could watch their supporters cry when they can't afford chit.
Once again its whatever the taxrate is for corporate and whatever tax bracket there in. Paying it is there fair share not finding every loophole so they don't pay anything like some corporations do.
Again, the vast majority of loopholes are used by the low-income and middle class. Many tax deductions phase out at higher income levels. And the Alternative Minimum Tax also applies.
That's why the top 1%'s effective federal income tax rate is 3.36 times higher than effective rate the middle class pays, even though the highest tax bracket rate is only 1.4 times the middle class tax bracket rate.
So if we cut the handouts to the poor you can't complain about the rioting, and starvation that would result?
Require work for benefits. I've already suggested that approach.
Too many welfare-recipients are addicted to government handouts. What do we do with drug addicts? We remove their access to drugs, and support them but practice tough love.
The homeless/hungry? Put them up in ward type housing. 3 hots and a cot. Have them work in the facility whether it be cleaning, laundry, kitchen duty, babysitting others' kids so that they can contribute the work required to sustain the facility, maintenance, repairs, etc. Virtually everyone has some kind of skill that can be leveraged to help themselves and others.
If they don't want to live in that type of environment, well, then... there's their incentive to work their way up and out to become self-supporting and no longer dependent on government freebies.
Schoolchildren: continue to feed them free breakfast, lunch, and frequently dinner at school (many have acknowledged in this forum, including liberals, that if left to their parents' responsibility, the kids wouldn't be fed), but reduce their parents' SNAP benefits accordingly.
Quote:
I think underlying this is the fairly accurate observation by most that while their parents or grandparents shared in the growing wealth of the nation as a whole, thats no longer true for them. That while corporate profits are at a all time high, the share paid to the people doing the work is at a fairly low % of the income coming in.
I've explained why that is.
Quote:
"[Economist Anatole] Kaletsky argues that over-reliance on progressive taxes creates "a perverse incentive for governments to promote income inequality. Ifthe solvency of the stateand the ability to fund basic services for the poorest people in society depends on the rich getting even richer, it is tempting for even the most progressive politicians to support widening inequalities."
As long as the U.S. has a progressive tax system, the incentive remains to keep the income gap as wide as possible, and this is why: When the top 1% loses income share, the federal government loses twice that much in tax revenue. But when the top 1% gains income share, the federal government consequently gains twice that much in tax revenue.
Think about that.
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.
