MusicAdventurer
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1,034
- Reaction score
- 268
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
NOpe, if the middle class and lower were not seduced by the government tit, I suspect far less would wallow in squalor and a lack of ambition. If you subsidize something you increase it and we subsidize dependence
Actually TD, I have explained this before, having safety nets for the poor would work if they weren't set up to encourage staying in the system. Please see my previous post in this link: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/104392-do-you-want-higher-taxes-6.html#post1059654691
Musicadventurer .. Turtle posted this to you
All of Turtle's points have been rebutted to death over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread no matter what the actual subject of that thread is.
I thought you socialists claim corporations are not persons. dividend recipients are paying taxes on their income-and those who work for those corporations are paying taxes on their income so you are lying. Corporations don't pay income taxes they pay corporate profit taxes.
1) More than half of the Fortune 500 paid no taxes
2) Corporations are not people
3) Dividends are not taxes
4) Corp pays income taxes
spend some of the time you spend machine gunning posts and look around plenty have said that those 47% can afford no more taxes and have no disposable income
NOpe, if the middle class and lower were not seduced by the government tit, I suspect far less would wallow in squalor and a lack of ambition. If you subsidize something you increase it and we subsidize dependence
No kidding
I've only noticed one poster using the 47% figure. I have noted that most of the Fortune 500 corps pay no income taxes at all.
That is why we need to tax the rich. They're lazy and grown accustomed to sucking on the public teat. We have to stop subsidizing their sloth
Actually TD, I have explained this before, having safety nets for the poor would work if they weren't set up to encourage staying in the system. Please see my previous post in this link: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/104392-do-you-want-higher-taxes-6.html#post1059654691
you aren't subsidizing them-we subsidize you. Your posting frequency here suggests you don't have a job given how much time you spend here during normal working hours.
Yeah, did you read it? What do you think of that? Wouldn't getting rid of safety net cut-offs and progressively weening, eliminate the current trap welfare system?
you are lying again-they pay lots of taxes. they pay payroll taxes. they pay taxes on profits earned in other tax jurisdictions. They pay property taxes. and who cares. the people whom own them pay taxes on the income they derive from owning the corporation
you aren't subsidizing them-we subsidize you. Your posting frequency here suggests you don't have a job given how much time you spend here during normal working hours.
The overwhelming majority of welfare recipients are only on welfare for less than 5 years. The claim that it leads to a lifetime of dependency is a rightwing myth. The dependency on govt subsidies is an affliction of the rich, who require massive bailouts in order to make a dime.
Umm .. have you ever heard of shift work?
Yes, I agree, many people are trying to get off welfare; however (see my link above) certain "welfare cut-off" policies and a lack of education regarding the welfare system can work to encourage people to stay on welfare. I am not suggesting getting rid of welfare, rather, I am suggesting that we place more rewards and less punishments for those trying to get off the system.
The only welfare trap is the recurring bailouts the rich require. Welfare is limited to a total of 5 years.
There is a 5 year limit on welfare. Kicking people off of welfare does not encourage them to stay on welfare.
While I agree that bailouts for the rich are traps, if you follow my link, you will see that there are some traps for welfare on the poor as well. As far as I know the only welfare that is limited to five years is cash payouts (Welfare clock running out / As 5-year limit on benefits approaches, poor parents need financial help despite finding new jobs - SFGate), and not food stamps, healthcare and subsidized housing. I could be wrong though, send me a link if I am.
I totally agree that kicking people off welfare does not encourage them to stay on welfare, lol! Do you think I was suggesting otherwise? I am saying that putting rewards into place for the poor (instead of punishments) for earning more money would encourage them to move up the ladder.
Umm .. have you ever heard of shift work?
Your link contradicts what you just said.
It says that these recipients are now working and soon, will no longer be on welfare. wrt
health care - even the middle class is going broke over medical bills. 60% of all bankruptcies were due to medical bills and the majority were people who had insurance and a middle class income
food stamps - a giveaway to Factory Farming
housing - the subsidies have decreased, not increased, a sign that the dreaded "dependency" is just another rightwing myth
Your argument is flimsy. All the evidence points to the opposite of what you're saying
That has already been done and it is working, as demonstrated by the article that you posted. I have no idea where you're getting this idea that the social safety net is increasing dependency in the poor. If you have any facts that support your claim, I'd like to see them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?