fairtax is the solution.

not only is it "fair" it also goes a long way in easing the burden illegals place on our resources. if anything, fairtax would encourage illegal immigrants to apply for visas/citizenship so that they can get the prebate.

1/21/2008 4:44:31 PM

I dunno moron, but if everyone pays it then it hurts equally. I think 15-20% seems like a good amount to give the govt. Im not sure where that leaves the budget, but let them deal with that.

1/21/2008 4:45:34 PM

maybe moron and 420 dude could explain why I should work hard, get an advance degree, and be motivated to innovate so that I have to pay for the weak links of society to drag on. No not everyone who is paid on the system is lazy but a lot of people are leeches on the system.

1/21/2008 4:50:33 PM

Quote :

"I think 20% is a good number. With maybe a $5000 exemption for basic food and necessities applied to everyone regardless of income to be fair."

Why $5000? Why not $1000 or $10000?

Quote :

"I dunno moron, but if everyone pays it then it hurts equally. I think 15-20% seems like a good amount to give the govt. Im not sure where that leaves the budget, but let them deal with that."

No, it doesn't hurt equally. It hurts the poor person a lot more. A poor family of 3 has to buy the same amount of food to stay a live as a rich family of 3. So for a poor person, this expense might be 20-30% of their income, while for a richer family it would be maybe 1-10% of their income.

Quote :

"maybe moron and 420 dude could explain why I should work hard, get an advance degree, and be motivated to innovate so that I have to pay for the weak links of society to drag on. No not everyone who is paid on the system is lazy but a lot of people are leeches on the system."

Well why not just kill them? Or force them to a concentration camp where their death is hastened, and their burden on society is reduced?

And you should work hard and get a degree because it's what gives you a sense of personal fulfillment. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone would not go to school because they're worried about having to pay for things for poor people?

And what percentage of the people are "lazy leeches on the system?" Is it a meaningful enough percent for you to whine about it as much as you are?

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 5:02 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2008 4:57:20 PM

^a poor family of three can eat cheap, sacrifice, not have cellphones, cable tv, etc. It was thier decision to have 3 kids on a small income. Dont keep having kids and expect others to pay to raise them.

Guess what, somehow this fucking country made it before food stamps.

1/21/2008 5:03:15 PM

Quote :

"By this logic, under a "flat" tax a poor person's rate would have to be about 30% of a richer persons, because rich people benefit more from gov, war and defense spending, and poor people benefit more from human services spending."

Ever heard of the 9-trillion national debt?

The federal government maintaining this gargantuan debt does push up interest rates. It snuffs out potentially lower rate investments that would be made in a different world where there is less competition for borrowing and more competition for lending.

Who benefits from this? The lenders. In other words, the rich (epically after the Bush tenure).

Make no mistake, social programs are a tax on the rich redistributed to the poor. The national debt is a tax on the poor redistributed to the rich. Who wins out in the end? The rich.

We really are in the business of redistribution of wealth. The catch is that it goes in the opposite direction of what most Americans think.

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 5:06 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2008 5:05:42 PM

Quote :

"a poor family of three can eat cheap, sacrifice, not have cellphones, cable tv, etc. It was thier decision to have 3 kids on a small income. Dont keep having kids and expect others to pay to raise them. "

Well make it a single man, it doesn't change the principle.

You keep responding to posts i'm not making.

I suggest you think about this issue rationally, instead of emotionally.

Quote :

"Guess what, somehow this fucking country made it before food stamps."

Yeah, that time period was called the Great Depression. Fun.

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 5:14 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2008 5:09:09 PM

Quote :

"No, it doesn't hurt equally. It hurts the poor person a lot more. A poor family of 3 has to buy the same amount of food to stay a live as a rich family of 3. So for a poor person, this expense might be 20-30% of their income, while for a richer family it would be maybe 1-10% of their income."

I think you are missing the point. The gov't does not have the job nor isn't it economically viable to make sure everyone gets free handouts regardless of if they put forth a contributing effort into the good of society. So what if a poor family of 3 has to pay a higher percentage of their income for food. Perhaps the parents should have taken this into factor when deciding if to partake in higher education or their career choice.

What is the motivation to excel when you can sit back have a subsidized living relative to other people b.c you make less money. I honestly to not see the problem. Drop out of high school and get a shitty job making 18K a year; too damn bad.

Quote :

"The catch is that it goes in the opposite direction of what most Americans think."

Exactly.

The constitution does not mention that every man has the right to a BMW, $200K house, T-Bone steak dinner everynight, and the option to sit back while collecting welfare at the expense of others.

If you do not like being in the bottom economic strata forced to pay a greater % of your paycheck to necessities then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. It is not like poor people are shackled to chains and forced to pick cotton at $1 a day. This is the one thing I generally like the most about the US. If you can play the game and manipulate the system in your favor you can generally better your economic condition through a little hard work and initiative.

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 6:10 PM. Reason : a]

1/21/2008 6:07:44 PM

moron, if your example make 400 a check. His taxes would be 80 bucks. He would have 320 left over for a two week period. If someone made 2k a check, they would pay 400, over 4x the amount of the first guy, but the same percentage of 20%.

We got into the great depression bc we didnt have food stamps prior? Come on man.

Ok, Ill agree to let you keep the tax structure the same, only if you let someone vote count as many times as the taxes they pay. Deal? Im sure that doesnt sound fair to you, but lets have a progressive voting system as well, since they are funding everything, let them have a bigger say in matters. WOuld you agree with that?

1/21/2008 6:35:30 PM

Quote :

"Ill agree to let you keep the tax structure the same, only if you let someone vote count as many times as the taxes they pay."

I'm down with that. I believe that the suffrage of uneducated people is a detriment to well being of a democracy b.c they can be more easily manipulated by powerful figures and do not have a full understanding on the full impact of various gov't policies.

1/21/2008 6:48:33 PM

Quote :

"What is the motivation to excel when you can sit back have a subsidized living relative to other people b.c you make less money."

The purpose of taxation is not to encourage or discourage people from excelling. Taxation doesn't have a meaningful affect on this.

The only reason you bring it up is to frame the issue in a dishonest way. What if I asked you why should I try to make more money when I know that 70% of it is going to be used to start wars and kill innocent people on fabricated claims of WMDs? That's technically what happens, but it's a dumb reason for me to not want to work harder to better myself. And I don't actually know anyone who thinks that way. Likewise, I don't actually know anyone who wouldn't take a promotion or job offer that pays more just because they don't want the 30% of what they pay in taxes to go to poor people.

If what you pay in taxes is your motivation for doing what you do in ilfe, that's fine for you, but it's an idiotic way to look at things.

The purpose of taxes is to fund the gov. In the goal of funding the gov., mathematically, it makes more sense to use a progressive tax structure, because you can get more money that way, without putting a burden on American's lives. How progressive this needs to be is a different question, but there's no question that it needs to be progressive (which you seem to partially agree with anyway).

Quote :

"I honestly to not see the problem. Drop out of high school and get a shitty job making 18K a year; too damn bad."

If someone drops out of high school, they get what they deserve. For 99% of people, there's just no excuse to drop out.

But, the problem is that there are people out there, who do graduate high school, and who are still only going to make 18k/year. In fact, even if everyone graduated high school, and was perfectly productive, there'd still be people whose quality of life and purchasing power is equivalent to someone making $18k/year.

Lets say we implement your tax system, and it somehow causes everyone who can work to work at their full potential, what then would you do? You'd still have these dirt poor people, working crappy jobs, with nothing else they can do, until we invent AI robots that can take their jobs, and then move them to our space colonies to work jobs more suited for them.

Quote :

"moron, if your example make 400 a check. His taxes would be 80 bucks. He would have 320 left over for a two week period. If someone made 2k a check, they would pay 400, over 4x the amount of the first guy, but the same percentage of 20%."

Yeah, but that $160/month for the poorer person is enough to cover about half of his grocery bill, leaving him just a little more to pursue night school or something so he can get a better job. He's going to miss that 20% more than the other person, and is "punished" more by the 20% than the other person.

If your goal is trying to be fair, why are you punishing one person more than the other? Do you not see how that's not fair?

Quote :

"We got into the great depression bc we didnt have food stamps prior? Come on man."

That's not what I was saying, and you know it.

I know you were being figurative, but the Food Stamps program was started at the end of the Great Depression, in response to Great-Depression conditions. You seemed to claim that things were fine before Food Stamps, when for the the 9 years before food stamps, we were in the great depression, where unless you were very rich, things were decidedly not "fine".

Social programs and progressive taxation weren't created to screw the rich, like you seem to feel. They were created in response to specific events was my point. And it seems to have helped result in the growth of the world's most powerful country.

1/21/2008 8:46:12 PM

Quote :

"What if I asked you why should I try to make more money when I know that 70% of it is going "

As much as I oppose the war on Iraq DoD is roughly 25% and I'd estimate maybe 1/2 to 1/4 of that is for operations in Iraq. I could be wrong but that is 12.5%-6.75% too much in my opinion but still not 70%. On the other hand 50% fucking percent of the federal budget goes to Social Security, medicare, medicaid, and welfare.

50 Fucking percent b.c Lue Ann wants to sit in her double wide trailer and watch ricky lake all day while her 13 yr old daughter is getting fucked and gonna be a teenage mother. If anything we should be bumping the lowest tax bracket to help fund the services that end up going back to them.

1/21/2008 9:58:54 PM

Quote :

"This phrase should also make you feel all warm and fuzzy: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Don't be an idiot. It's possible to have a progressive tax system without going down the slippery slope of communism. Besides, not every rich person has clawed their way from the lowest rung of the ladder. If you come from money, you have access to resources and options that make it easier for you to choose a good-paying career. The same cannot be said for somebody who was born in a trailer park or the ghetto.

Not all the resources given to everybody by society is a government handout. Take roads and infrastructure, for example. How's a poor person suppose to make use of the roads if he doesn't have a car, or go flying if he can't afford a ticket? Who uses those things more than anybody else? The upper and middle classes. How is it that the rich people's businesses thrive and make them all that $texas? Because we have a nice, well-funded army protecting our borders, because there's a highway system that is built and maintained so that they can distribute their products, etc. You don't have to be getting a welfare check every month in order to benefit from the fruits of society's combined labor.

No, rich pretty much owe their success in some part to the society in which they live, because the society in which they live allows their business(es) to flourish. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask the rich to give something back in return. And since the rich have obviously benefited the most from society, it makes sense to ask them to give back the most.

1/21/2008 10:29:41 PM

Quote :

"If anything we should be bumping the lowest tax bracket to help fund the services that end up going back to them."

This doesn't make any sense.

If they had money in the first place, the gov. wouldn't be spending money for assistance. Why tax them just to give that money back to them, in a diluted form? Or is it fair for one poor person to pay for another poor person by your reasoning?

I think I asked this earlier, but what percentage of the poor people on the system are leeches that you feel they deserve to go homeless?

Do you realize that at least 130,000,000 Americans (i could only find numbers for medicare and SS so I assumed medicaid was close to medicare in # of beneficiaries), almost 40% of all of us, are beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid, or social security? Are you saying that we should let 40% of the country suffer whatever fate comes to them because they are lazy and irresponsible? What do you think would happen to the country in that type of situation?

1/21/2008 10:53:04 PM

Quote :

"Why tax them just to give that money back to them, in a diluted form"

b.c many Americans are irresponsible. Hurricane Katrina was a classic example. Red Cross gave $1500 gift cards to a bunch of the victims who lost their homes and belongings. Months later a whole report was given on how many of the victims used this money not for rebuilding their lives and buying basic necessities but to buy booze, strippers, drugs, etc.

Look at how many Americans do not have health insurance. I am sure 80% of the uninsured could afford it if they made other sacrifices in their life. It is extremely irresponsible to not have health insurance yet are boozing it up every weekend at the bars, have a HDTV in the living room, and are buying $90 air jordans.

1/22/2008 12:08:37 AM

You should volunteer with Habitat for Humanity or the Inter-faith Food Shuttle or something, because you have a very sad, but humorous, perception of poor people.

These people in the lower tax brackets aren't living it up on free money. Most of them are fairly pitiful with few possessions in run down houses wondering why god hates them. For blacks especially, whose families have never really known anything but poverty, it often seems particularly hopeless.

It's almost as bad as poor people who think rich white guys sit around all day smoking cigars on their yachts, living on trust funds, devising ways to screw them over. Considering this thread though, that latter caricature has more credibility.

1/22/2008 12:41:44 AM

^Nah.

Quote :

" A Treasury Department study of tax returns found that, over a 10-year period, the poorest 20 percent were more likely to have climbed to the top 20 percent than to have remained in the bottom 20 percent. In short, Americans can and do climb the ladder of opportunity--and lower tax rates can help them climb higher and faster. "

1/22/2008 12:59:34 AM

Okay look, chances are you didn't pay for your education. Chances are your parents did or you got loans. Poor people have far less opportunity to change their situation than you give them credit for.

POOR PEOPLE ARE NOT POOR BECAUSE THEY'RE LAZY.

If someone is still living off $7 an hour when they're 40, it's probably because they never went to college, which was probably because they came from a poor neighborhood with poor public schools, and preformed just as well as their poor friends. For them to get out of the niche, they have to preform anomalously well, and do so when they're young.

Isn't it great that you can just go to college, have your in-state tuition securely financed, and get a high paying job just by living up to the expectations set for you? Even if you got loans, I bet your parents helped you get credit somewhere along the line. Fact is, you can do all this by just being average. For some people in this country to do that, they have to be amazing.

Or maybe you want to advocate some screwed up social-Darwinism where the success of someone's parents should dictate the chances they have in life themselves? One way or the other, the destitute situation of the poor people in this country is OUR problem too. And if you listen to some rich white bitches

http://www.amazon.com/Nickel-Dimed-Not-Getting-America/dp/0805063897

They're doing you a favor by accepting the situation. In fact, some would claim that the poor (majority) many communities of this nation are quite the benevolent beings for not dragging out their rich overlords and shooting them in the head.

How's that for them taking the initiative to do something about their situation?

I think welfare and progressive tax is something your dumbass rich ass can live with, with good reason.

1/22/2008 1:10:36 AM

^^ link?

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 1:10 AM. Reason : ]

1/22/2008 1:10:41 AM

So any specifics on how this works:

1) $1600 for a couple, $800 for a single person. Take a single income family for example. Do they get the $1600 because there are two connected dependents or do they get $800 because there is a single taxpayer? Some years ago when it was a $300 check it was the latter. A single income family got $150.

2) I assume they'll end up taxing you twice. Once for the initial earning of the money. Then they give you some of it back, which counts as income, which is taxed again.

1/22/2008 8:08:38 AM

Quote :

"Chances are your parents did or you got loans."

you pay loans back silly

Quote :

"And if you listen to some rich white bitches"

a little racist are we

Quote :

"They're doing you a favor by accepting the situation. In fact, some would claim that the poor (majority) many communities of this nation are quite the benevolent beings for not dragging out their rich overlords and shooting them in the head. "

actually many do and they are called criminals. Anyone who has ever gotten mugged on the street would probably refute your point. Beside
when they fuck up they go to jail.

Quote :

"I think welfare and progressive tax is something your dumbass rich ass can live with, with good reason."

I'm not rich. My grandparents were working class Americans, my mom's side which were farmers. They worked hard and raised their kids
to go to college and make it into a better life then they had. My parents then raised me and partly using my own intelligence and motivation
worked the system so that I will be able to graduate and will go into a professional nice upper-middle class job as an engineer.

sorry no silver spoon in my hand.

Quote :

"So any specifics on how this works: 1) $1600 for a couple, $800 for a single person. Take a single income family for example. Do they get the $1600 because there are two connected dependents or do they get $800 because there is a single taxpayer? Some years ago when it was a $300 check it was the latter. A single income family got $150."

I think tax child credits need to be limited to three. This way incentive is removed for welfare moms to keep pumping out bastard babies for a "raise" on their weekly gov't issued paychecks.

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 9:40 AM. Reason : a]

1/22/2008 9:39:41 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, but that $160/month for the poorer person is enough to cover about half of his grocery bill, leaving him just a little more to pursue night school or something so he can get a better job. He's going to miss that 20% more than the other person, and is "punished" more by the 20% than the other person. If your goal is trying to be fair, why are you punishing one person more than the other? Do you not see how that's not fair? "

Moron, the point about it being fair is that its the same percentage. Who are you and I to judge how much someone "need" their own money more than others? Who isnt ot say that that "rich" person doenst have loans to repay, or running a business? We dont. But one thing you cant argue is that he isnt paying more money, but they both have the same percentage to spend after taxes..which is fair my friend.

1/22/2008 9:47:59 AM

^^Oh, in my example I was referring spouses, one adult that works and one adult that doesn't. I don't think you have ever been able to claim a dependent child as a qualifier.

I'm pretty sure it works on the basis of all individual tax payers. Don't pay the tax? Don't get the "rebate."

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 9:48 AM. Reason : ^]

1/22/2008 9:48:28 AM

tilley, its a refund. So if one paid taxes, you would get up to 800 bucks. Thats the way it should be, but remember the last tax refund? It discriminated against those that didnt pay taxes. LOL, so they had to do a child credit to send more money to people who didnt even pay taxes. Typical PC bullshit.

1/22/2008 9:50:32 AM

Yeah, that's what I thought. It seems fair - how can you get the rebate if you don't pay in the first place, just checking.

Wouldn't that be a kicker if the $1600 check bumped you up to the next highest tax bracket and you ended up losing money on the deal? Don't know if that scenario is possible though.

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 9:59 AM. Reason : -]

1/22/2008 9:58:16 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "And if you listen to some rich white bitches" a little racist are we"

haha, coming from the guy who said this on the previous page

Quote :

"25% of which goes to social programs while Tyronne pay 0-10% income tax on the 8,000 he makes while working at McDonalds. He is using my tax money to buy food through foodstamps; my tax money to provide shelter via gov't subsidized housing projects; and my tax money to pay for his medicaid since McD's does not supply health insurance and he makes below a certain threshold. All his basics are covered for him so his $6.15/hr is like free spending money to get them chrome rims, hennesey, and a oz. of that sticky icky"

1/22/2008 10:06:03 AM

I'm going to come back later when I have time and cuss out HUR. Look forward to it.

1/22/2008 10:31:18 AM

Quote :

"maybe moron and 420 dude could explain why I should work hard, get an advance degree, and be motivated to innovate so that I have to pay for the weak links of society to drag on. No not everyone who is paid on the system is lazy but a lot of people are leeches on the system."

I've made this point before, but no one seemed to listen (probably because it was a good point) and moron touched on it a little bit, but there is no disincentive for earning more money. Like moron said, if knowing that your promotion/extra pay or whatever will go towards helping poor people makes you not want that extra income then you are a fool.

He also made a good point that rich people do benefit more from services like roads and air travel more than poor people do because they use them more, for business and personal uses.

After a certain income point, a fair tax seems reasonable because after a certain point need for money becomes want for money. But that's basically what a progressive tax is. HUR said something about playing the game. Well, an inherent quality in a game is that there are winners and losers, unless there is a tie. I'd hope you wouldn't argue that there is a tie in the system we live in and admit that, by your own definition, the system we live in is designed to create losers. Those losers deserve to be helped because the majority of them help add to the economy more than they take away from it. Or do you think people like teachers, retail sales people, auto mechanics, waiters and waitresses are just too lazy? Because all of those jobs and many more are things that are needed in our economy but just don't always pay enough to live comfortably. They make an equal contribution in terms of effort put into work, they just aren't compensated the same as other people.

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 10:35 AM. Reason : dyslexia]

1/22/2008 10:34:32 AM

Quote :

"haha, coming from the guy who said this on the previous page"

I never mentioned any race.

^ Half of those jobs you mentioned while not the most high paying jobs would not qualify for what we are discussing in this thread.

In Raleigh the median...

Public School Teacher makes $47,000 (w/ health insurance provided by the State)
Entry Level Auto Mechanic $29,000

I hope you are kidding about retail sales b.c with good people skills and good work ethic a person has the potential to make $bank by staying in sales. That is unless they are LAZY and are contempt to staying a Cashier at Food Lion.

Therefore all the above mentioned jobs you attempted to counter my argument with actually supports my opinion as these people get a substantial portion 15-25% of their paycheck taking out through taxes. Much of which is used to pay for social services for those w/o the same work ethic. Teaching also require a 4 year degree with I really do not consider lazy anyway.

Even waiters can make some bank if they work hard. People with those jobs you mentioned most likely are not on welfare, food stamps, or medicaid. They may not be able to buy a BMW M5 but they do make a comfortable income. If they wanted a yacht and a 400K then maybe they should further their career or reconsider their career choice. A retail sales person at Best Buy could perhaps work hard get some training and make his way into management. I know the General Managers for EACH Best Buy make well into the 6-figures.

Nice try 420 come back and play again.

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 10:54 AM. Reason : a]

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 10:56 AM. Reason : a]

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 10:56 AM. Reason : link http://hotjobs.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl_keywordsearch.asp]

1/22/2008 10:52:10 AM

Stoned I disagree. There is a penality for earning more. You become inelligible for govt programs when you earn. You could lose your food stamps, housing, free daycare, free gas, etc. There will also be a time when the people who, not only contributed the most to SS saved some too, will be opted out bc someone like you will decide that they "dont need" it as much as those who didnt save anything. YOu already get capped on your SS benefits and if you pay the full amount will not see that money back in full. So yes, there are penalities for earning more and they are set up by the government.

stoned, do you think its unfair to have a flattax or straight consumption tax?

You listed some careers and they do pay enough to live comfortably. HOwever, people expect to live like Trump on a low salary. Dont believe me? Look at the average debt per household. LOok at the mortgage "crisis". If you dont see it, you have your eyes closed.

1/22/2008 10:52:29 AM

Quote :

"rich pretty much owe their success in some part to the society in which they live"

Actually it is society that owes its success to the achievers in this world. Gates and Microsoft have contributed much more to society than they've pulled out..or consumed gov't services.

Fomenting jealousy is a favorite weapon of socialists...

Quote :

"I think welfare and progressive tax is something your dumbass rich ass can live with, with good reason."

...see what I mean?

1/22/2008 11:16:02 AM

most poor people are poor because of choices they made....whether that be drugs, influences, pregnancy, immaturaty or whatever.

we all have equal opportunity to go to public school, make grades, get loans and go to school. the problem is most who fail at this do so by their own choices.

i grew up in a single-parent household with very little money. i realized, at a pretty young age, that unless i wanted to continue this cycle, i had to get my shit together...and i did. nobody told me to.

where in the hell has self-accountability gone in this country??

1/22/2008 11:50:47 AM

Wow, that is probably one of the dumbest statements I've ever seen. Poverty begets poverty. It is not easy to move up in society. Likewise it's most likely your social position won't change all that much from generation to generation. To simply blow off thousands of years of social trends as 'laziness and drug abuse' is really ignorant.

Pardon me, I mean, fucking stupid.

1/22/2008 12:03:57 PM

^^^^ & ^^^^^ Maybe some of those were bad examples, but my main point still remains. There are people who work full time and put some effort into their work who just don't make enough money to live comfortably on. These people get left behind by society despite the fact that they still contribute service to society. And just because those people make enough money to "live comfortably," whatever that means, doesn't mean that they aren't the ones who suffer the most from a flat tax. The flat tax punishes them more than a progressive tax does because it takes away a higher percentage of their disposable income. These are also the people who are hit hardest by inflation, higher gas prices, higher food prices because they have less to begin with.

HUR, you failed to address my point about what you said about "the game." Using your own words, you described a system that we live in that is set up to create losers. I'd like to know what you propose we do about these losers that are inevitably going to exist by your standards.

eyedrb, I was referring to people who are out of lower income. If you have a job and whatnot there is a huge incentive to make more money. It's that you get more money. No one is going to say, "Damn, if I make more money the government is gonna tax me more... I better not take that promotion or that raise." It's always better to make more money even if that means you pay more overall in taxes.

Quote :

"stoned, do you think its unfair to have a flattax or straight consumption tax?"

Well, I don't think a consumption tax could ever possibly work, so let's just throw that out right now. Flat tax is unfair to lower income workers because it takes more disposable income away from them. I don't think people who make more money should be punished by paying higher taxes, but the simple fact is they make more money and that gives them a considerable amount more disposable income. It might be a shitty deal as far as paying more in taxes, but I think it's shittier to expect people who work just as hard but don't make as much to eat into their disposable income to the point of possibly not even having any. If you make 35k a year (which seems to be a respectable amount by this board's standards) and pay 25% in taxes, that leaves you with about 27k take home. How far do you think even a responsible person can make that go while paying for food, health care, gas, insurance, housing? How much will they have left? Not very much. Compare that to someone who makes 100k a year. Under a flat tax they take home 75k. That can go much further than 27k. Is it really so unreasonable to ask that the 100k person pay 10% more and only take home 65k so that 4 people working at 35k a year can keep an extra 3k or so? I don't think it is. Keep in mind that this is a person who is working full-time but just doesn't make much money. That's why I think a flat tax is unfair.

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM. Reason : arrows]

1/22/2008 12:14:12 PM

monky, its not a stupid statement at all. My grandfather was a coal miner and died while on the job. My grandmother who wasnt working got his salary for 1 year, this was before everyone sued. She worked as a waitress on two jobs to provide for her two daughters. My mom will admit they grew up with nothing and it was a depressing childhood. But they never took welfare or got in the free lunch line. They went on to be a nurse and a teacher. So people can come out of poverty if they have the desire to do so. The fact that you are born poor doenst mean you have to stay poor. You have the same opportunities to pull yourself up if willing.

Stoned. I guess the part that still has me scratching my head about yoru statments is its seems you expect the person making 30k to have the same lifestyle of the person making 100k. You have no idea how much debt the person making 100k has to get hiimself to that point. (I know, Im living it). Although, Im paying over 30% now and its just BS. I dont qualify for the rebate either because so many of you classify me as rich. However, no one wants to forgive my 100k school debt. There is a reason why some jobs pay more than others, and yes some arent fair. My drug reps laugh at how they make more than me. But, there is a reason. If you dont like making 30k, go back to school and get a better job. Dont expect the govt to take from those who did and give you the same lifestyle. That my friend isnt fair.

So you would agree there is a disadvantage to making more money in the lower income levels?

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 12:27 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2008 12:26:28 PM

Quote :

"Wow, that is probably one of the dumbest statements I've ever seen. Poverty begets poverty. It is not easy to move up in society. Likewise it's most likely your social position won't change all that much from generation to generation. To simply blow off thousands of years of social trends as 'laziness and drug abuse' is really ignorant. Pardon me, I mean, fucking stupid. "

So lets solve chronic poverty (not an acute poverty victim of natural disaster, guy that got laid off looking for new jobs) by handing them money so that they become complacent and have no incentive for working hard to better themselves.

^^ let em rot. If everyone had a BMW then their would be nothing special about succeeding in life to earn one. Like if everyone played in the NFL then there would be no fun in watching football every sunday.

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 12:41 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 12:41 PM. Reason : a]

1/22/2008 12:39:45 PM

I don't expect them to live the same lifestyle. I don't think taking home 30k a year after taxes is exactly living it up. Someone who is able to take home twice that much and pay more in taxes should, in my opinion, be willing to give up that money to make other people's lives a little easier. Not because I'm a socialist or anything like that, but because living on 65k a year is a helluva lot easier than living on 30k even if you have loans. Not only will the person making 100k before taxes probably end up making a shitload more money than that in even just 5 years, but the person making 35k before taxes will be lucky to be making 60k in 10 years. I mean, that might be getting close to socialism in some people's minds, but I see it more as giving back to the society that has given you so much. It's really not that much to ask I don't think and if I'm ever in that position I'll be willing to do it.

Quote :

"So you would agree there is a disadvantage to making more money in the lower income levels?"

You're talking about extreme lower income people. I won't argue that there's a disadvantage in making more money way down there, but that's really not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people in upper level incomes making more money, which is what the original statement was referring to. Also, people in the lower middle class is what I've been talking about, not so much about the people who milk the system. I, honestly, don't have a much better opinion of them than you do but I also don't see them as much of a tax burden as you do. There's certainly waste there, but to me there are much bigger areas of waste and it gets really tired when you and HUR whip this dead horse when there are so many other things that are wrong with the system. HUR admits that Iraq is a money pit, but I've never heard you say anything else you have a problem with. There are far bigger problems than a couple million extremely poor people milking the system.

1/22/2008 12:45:37 PM

^^ HUR, I'm not talking about creating a system where everyone gets a BMW. Of course that's absurd. But what about creating a system where the losers you yourself admit are an unavoidable part of the society we live in are atleast taken care of and given a chance to improve their lot in life? Is that not something we should concern ourselves with?

1/22/2008 12:49:25 PM

If the goal is economic stimulus, rebates should be targeted at the lower end of the income bracket. Most of that money is spent and goes directly into the economy. The more you move up the income bracket, a larger portion is just going to be saved. The dollars that are invested will eventually help the economy, but will be too late to have much of an effect on the current recession.

Quote :

"Its funny how when a recession is coming EVERYONE talks about taxcuts/rebates to stimulate the economy, even democrates. Just the other times they are the devil."

Are you missing the policy distinction between short-term infusions/deficit spending for a targeted package and accumulating large amounts of national debt as a matter of policy?

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2008 12:52:38 PM

The deficit is perpetuated by the Republicans to force the Democrats to raise taxes when they are inevitably voted into office every couple election cycles.

1/22/2008 12:59:51 PM

Quote :

"should, in my opinion, be willing to give up that money to make other people's lives a little easier"

This is grotesquely at odds with our founding philosophy of man's inalienable rights, that each man is an end in himself and not a sacrificial object of society.

1/22/2008 1:02:57 PM

There's a lot of shit the government does that the founding fathers never intended to happen. The income tax itself was never meant to be a power of the government but it's here and it's not going away.

1/22/2008 1:07:35 PM

Quote :

"If the goal is economic stimulus, rebates should be targeted at the lower end of the income bracket. Most of that money is spent and goes directly into the economy."

yeah on crack, beer, strip clubs, and $200 tennis shoes made in China




Savings is what we need people to do. Money in a savings account is more money banks can use to give loans to other people for various pursuits such as starting a business, buying a new car, mortagage, etc. Some of you people need to read a book on economics before you babel any longer about the economy. OMFG rich people bad gimme your money so i can waste it on stupid shit

1/22/2008 1:49:30 PM

^Maybe if you had read the next two sentences, you wouldn't have missed the whole issue.

Quote :

"The more you move up the income bracket, a larger portion is just going to be saved. The dollars that are invested will eventually help the economy, but will be too late to have much of an effect on the current recession."

I don't think Congress is hurrying to throw a package together to best promote long term growth.

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 2:09 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2008 2:09:38 PM

^like taxcuts perhaps?

1/22/2008 2:11:18 PM

Quote :

"POOR PEOPLE ARE NOT POOR BECAUSE THEY'RE LAZY. If someone is still living off $7 an hour when they're 40, it's probably because they never went to college, which was probably because they came from a poor neighborhood with poor public schools, and preformed just as well as their poor friends. For them to get out of the niche, they have to preform anomalously well, and do so when they're young."

If someone is living off $7 an hour when they're 40 it's because they are lazy or don't apply themselves. PERIOD. McfuckingDonalds starts you at $6.50 / hr with TWO raises by the end of your first year. If you can't beat a McJob when you're 40 you are seriously failing at life.

Furthermore, moving out of poverty is real simple. Spend less than you earn, and dump what you don't spend into savings. It's not easy and it's not quick, but 100 years ago, your great grandparents died if there was a bad winter. The least you could do is prove that you can survive better than they could.

It's not easy. You give up certain comforts, but in the end, it's worth it to not have cable TV or high speed internet to know that an unexpected expense won't put you into debt. The problem is people (and charities and welfare programs don't help this) think that being rich means buying the most expensive crap you can. But ask any "rich" person you know and they will all tell you the same thing. The don't spend a lot. Being rich means having the money to buy what you want, not buying everything you want. We can't all be paris hiltons but if our grandparents could raise 4-6 kids and still provide without needing to take from the government, I would certainly think that we can.

Someone asked earlier if I think 40% of americans are a bunch of lazy leeches who should starve. No I don't. I think it's ridiculous that 40% of americans can't or don't manage to live without sucking from the federal teat. That's indicative of poor planning on the part of americans, not some huge conspiracy to keep the poor poor. Are are we seriously suggesting that 40% of americans are so poor and destitute there's nothing and no way they can change their position in life?

1/22/2008 2:16:02 PM

Quote :

"Wow, that is probably one of the dumbest statements I've ever seen. Poverty begets poverty. It is not easy to move up in society. Likewise it's most likely your social position won't change all that much from generation to generation. To simply blow off thousands of years of social trends as 'laziness and drug abuse' is really ignorant. Pardon me, I mean, fucking stupid."

notice i said MOST...not all.

poor people are poor because they were not able to break themselves of their "chains." whatever those chains are. i did. countless others have. being poor is not genetic...it is largely a number of choices within courses of actions. it may sound heartless but it is reality. anyone, under any circumstances can succeed if they apply themselves. some have it easier, no doubt about that...but that doesnt mean it cant be done.

your heart bleeds for the 40-year-old idiot working at mickey D's because he decided to skip classes and dropped out of high school. mine bleeds for the hard-working middle class.

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2008 2:21:17 PM

Quote :

"Maybe if you had read the next two sentences, you wouldn't have missed the whole issue. Quote : "The more you move up the income bracket, a larger portion is just going to be saved. The dollars that are invested will eventually help the economy, but will be too late to have much of an effect on the current recession." I don't think Congress is hurrying to throw a package together to best promote long term growth."

yeah and $600 will definitely rescue all the people that are getting laid off, lost 1/2 their retirement with the slumping stock market, or those that were caught up in and had to bail on their mortgage.



This is nothing but a band-aid at the problem and a political move to gain votes from stupid americans

1/22/2008 2:42:20 PM

Are we talking about poor people leeching the system, the fair tax for lower middle class americans, or tax rebates? I'm having a hard time keeping up with what everyone is getting after.

1/22/2008 2:45:23 PM

Quote :

"Are we talking about poor people leeching the system, the fair tax for lower middle class americans, or tax rebates? I'm having a hard time keeping up with what everyone is getting after. "

haha, I was thinking the same thing. I guess just pick an issue and run with it.

Good posts 1137 and dabird

1/22/2008 2:56:24 PM