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.
Actually both the left and right are lying/telling the truth in a way.
dollar per person the left says bush tax cuts benefited the wealthy more.
% of taxes vs income you are saying they benefited the poor and middle class more.
And both sides then accuse the other of lying.
What foolishness is this? You're both telling the truth........
Care to comment on the $2 trillion worth of redistribution per year from the top 40% to everyone else, with the top 1% alone paying 1/2 of that, or $1 trillion worth?
I'm going to say the same thing liberals always say about the top 1%, who as a matter of fact (supported by IRS data) pay an average effective federal income tax rate that is more than 3 times higher than the effective rate the middle class pays... "You should pay a higher tax rate because you can afford it."
You have no dependents, so you can afford to pay more tax.
The liberals' answer to that is yes, he deserves a break and you don't because you can afford to pay more tax.
I'm right there with you, and have been for a long time.
Really? 3 times what we pay? 1/4 my income goes to taxes and that's not including sales, gasoline, and state tax. So the 1% are paying 75% tax?
I'm going to say the same thing liberals always say about the top 1%, who as a matter of fact (supported by IRS data) pay an average effective federal income tax rate that is more than 3 times higher than the effective rate the middle class pays
And its really funny how you call my sources leftist propaganda, while you post sources from corporate think tanks.
Instead of reading page after page of corporate propaganda from your above source, that is only designed to keep CEO's and corporate tax rates low, why not keep it simple.
You don't have to read my sources (just read the words in the links.)
We are talking about the Bush tax cuts. Why are you posting sources that do not even mention the Bush tax cuts?
Was Bush not president throughout much of the 2000s?
He was, in fact, president from Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2009.
Quote:
"...we find that the biggest net beneficiaries of this increase in redistribution from 2000-2012 are middle-income families and working lower-income families (those in the second quintile). These were the families most targeted by economic stimulus programs and more generous tax credits. Of the $2 trillion in income that was redistributed in 2012, nearly half was paid for by families in the top 1 percent."
Work ethic is fine, obviously. My point was that "work ethic" and "responsibility" has no merit in public policy. Public policy is about fairness of opportunity and efficiency of resources. It is not meant to "reward" or "punish" folks. Leave that to your own family. Keep it out of government.
But isn't much of public policy affecting the poor social insurance of one form or another with oversight and caveats attached?
Unemployment benefits? You have to show you are looking for work.
Foodstamps can't be used for certain things, thus forced responsibility (or at least making it harder to convert to cash for liquor etc.)
My friends daughter got some need based scholarships that require the maintenance of at least a B average.
In short, you cannot have public policy without safeguards of responsibility or you wind up getting abused (more than already happens) by the fraudsters and lowlifes. (I have at least 2 or 3 relatives that fit this discription fully and my cousin in family services could tell you stories.....sigh.)
In fact, many of the forced responsibility and other controls are aimed at protecting the vulnerable children stuck in these situations....heck they even take peoples children away in our society if they are not responsible.
I agree, it's parents' fault if they got knocked up, it doesn't make them special. Neither are couples as far as I'm concerned. Unless they stay married for twenty years without cheating or separating. Single people get the short end of the stick for everything.
Work ethic is fine, obviously. My point was that "work ethic" and "responsibility" has no merit in public policy. Public policy is about fairness of opportunity and efficiency of resources. It is not meant to "reward" or "punish" folks. Leave that to your own family. Keep it out of government.
Yet you advocate a tax code that rewards people for behavior that the government approves of.
The current tax code, which is a facet of public policy rewards you for:
- having children
- buying a home
- living in a high tax state (via the state tax deduction)
- giving to charity
- borrowing money
I agree, it's parents' fault if they got knocked up, it doesn't make them special. Neither are couples as far as I'm concerned. Unless they stay married for twenty years without cheating or separating. Single people get the short end of the stick for everything.
I did not when I was single.
You have to stop whining and make your own luck.
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.
