Such bull. Conservatives would not spend a dime on public education of poor people, and education is the key for most to move out of being poor
Nope, we don't reproduce rapidly. But, one is in the oven. Due Jan 2. Didn't think I'd be so happy about this if it happened, but I am.I'm guessing the business involves some grandkids...the reason we live in 2 states is 2 sets of grandkids....
i'm trying to decide if you are deliberately being as stupid as you sound and this is your saddest, worst post ever; or if you are being ironic.
How would implementing a flat tax eliminate poverty?
Ironic due to the stupidity of PatrickT
Liberals no more want to keep poor people poor then conservatives.
Both enact policies that negatively and positively assist the poor. Some conservatives want to get rid of any social assistance and let the poor fend for themselves (like many latin american countries, which does a wonderfull job of keeping people poor, sending them to the US boarder) Some liberals want to throw money at the poor thinking that might be the solution
But when I see such idiocy claiming liberals want the poor to remain poor it does piss me off. I can create posts that have just as much moronic bigotry as anyone, with just as much made up reasons
How would implementing a flat tax eliminate poverty?
Exactly it wont...who cares,
God damnit. Its the same **** on every post from the TurtleDude...it would eliminate the power dems get by pandering to people and telling them that irresponsible government spending used to buy votes will only have to be paid by "the rich"
A flat tax would eliminate the need for the IRS which costs tax payers billions each year to fund. It would also eliminate the need for exemptions, loopholes, and other tax anomalies. It would be an easier tax code to enforce and would cost much less to enforce. And best of all, it is fair.
1) Just because a relationship is same-sex doesn't mean it isn't "intact"
2) Is there any evidence to actually prove your point that a man you don't love is a better partner than a woman you do?
A flat tax would eliminate the need for the IRS which costs tax payers billions each year to fund.
It would also eliminate the need for exemptions, loopholes, and other tax anomalies.
It would be an easier tax code to enforce and would cost much less to enforce. And best of all, it is fair.
That would depend on how its implemented. It would eliminate the need for the IRS if it were in the form of a universal excise tax.
As would a simplified progressive tax.
Fairness in the tax code is rather subjective.
But, to answer DemSoc, I don't believe a flat tax eliminates poverty.
Nothing will ever eliminate poverty. But there are things we can do to encourage growth, and taxes aren't one of them.
why do people have a duty to fund the existence of people whose lot are in no way due to the fault of those who are so taxed?
A flat tax would eliminate the need for the IRS which costs tax payers billions each year to fund. It would also eliminate the need for exemptions, loopholes, and other tax anomalies. It would be an easier tax code to enforce and would cost much less to enforce. And best of all, it is fair.
The IRS would still exist. It would have to exist to ensure those that owe taxes pay taxes. It could be smaller but it would still exist. Any tax system would require people to administer it.
It is a function of the society you live in. It promotes social stability and social mobility to a higher degree then funding prisons and having 1% of the population either in prison or on probation
k
Nothing will ever eliminate poverty. But there are things we can do to encourage growth, and taxes aren't one of them.
That would depend on how its implemented. It would eliminate the need for the IRS if it were in the form of a universal excise tax.
As would a simplified progressive tax.
Fairness in the tax code is rather subjective.
But, to answer DemSoc, I don't believe a flat tax eliminates poverty.
Poverty in the US comes in two styles
Absolute, and relative
Absolute poverty would be the kind of poverty you would see in third world slums. This is extremely limited in the US. Seen in the homeless and perhaps some rural communties (mostly native)
Relative poverty is the type that most refer to when discussing poverty in the US (or most developed countries for that matter). Relative poverty still means a lifestyle far better then that of those living in absolute poverty. Relative poverty will never be eliminated due to the way poverty is calculated in most countries. Does that mean we should stop trying no, but it does mean that society should not provide income support for those who are buying Harley Davidison motorcyles ( Earned Income tax credit). It should mean that the home that those in poverty are living in are generally safe, have running water, access to the sewer system. In other words habitable. It should mean they wont be starving, or malnourished through a money to buy food (whether they have good eating habits or not is another matter). It means that their childern should have access to a good education, it means they and all people should have access to basic health care.
And most of the poor in this country have all of that and more. I support food stamps, but I would limit what people can buy with them. I support public housing, but I would limit how long people can live in public housing. Some families have been there for generations and have no intention of moving out. I have no problem helping those who need it, but are also willing to help themselves. That being said, with the economy the way it is, and unemployment being so high, expecting people to get themselves out of poverty at this point is too high of an expectation for the most part. There is no such thing as a jobless recovery.
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?