- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
You're going to stick with that eventhough the number of people who *qualify* for assistance was slashed significantly in the 60's upon formation of the system?
It remains at that low level, too - eventhough the poverty-line has increased.
*Most* poor are temporarily poor. In 1996 the measures taken to change the system made dependence on it more so temporary.
Without the system those problems in life that lead peopel to be temporarily dependent on support of said nature (divorce, illness, job-loss, etc) would be harder to get over - if one could get passed it at all.
When you answer Aunt Spiker's questions, I will answer yours?
if you don't drop out of HS and you wait until marriage to have children your chance of being impoverished in the US is less than one in 20
taxes aren't the issue
indeed. who were the researchers who demonstrated that if you graduated high school, didn't have kids until you were married, and worked full-time, that you were statistically guaranteed not to live in poverty?
indeed. who were the researchers who demonstrated that if you graduated high school, didn't have kids until you were married, and worked full-time, that you were statistically guaranteed not to live in poverty?
Ok - so you two think it's not as bad as I see it.
cpwill's wife said:Look, all I'm saying is, it only has one bathroom
:lol:cpwill said:yeah, but look! it has running water!
But we all agree that we do have those who are homeless and so on. Some through their own decisions - others through the act of others. . . the reasons are quite varied.
So what to do about it?
Ending any of our attempts to help said individuals will only make the issue worse.
You know - the average person is only a bad situation and a few paychecks away from poverty. . . which is a disturbing thought.
the great injustice is not the issue-its the mindset a progressive tax creates
the mindset comes from the vast majority of voters thinking that a bloated government is not a problem and a deficit is not a problem because their leaders tell them the rich can be taxed at higher and higher rates to solve those problems and give the masses all the government they want
as long as the majority that uses the majority of government spending don't have to suffer any increased taxes they have no incentive whatsoever to stop the unsustainable expansion of government
a flat tax means that when some guy making 25K a year supports more government and taxes have to rise, he's gonna feel it and maybe next time he won't be so keen for more government expansion
I also tire of the power congress grabbed with the PIT-it allows the dems to pander to those who want more goodies and others to pay for it while the GOP turns around and gets support by opposing wealth confiscation
a flat tax means there would be a more honest discussion in Congress
how did the wars benefit the most of those in the top 2 percent of tax payers?
can you prove the idiotic claim that high massive tax rates caused prosperity
good luck if you can and what was the effective rate then versus now?
I'm much more interested in outcomes than in ideology,
You know - the average person is only a bad situation and a few paychecks away from poverty. . . which is a disturbing thought.
anyone who pays the top rate has most likely paid the tax burden for many othersI'm much more interested in outcomes than in ideology, and I'm not convinced a flat tax will improve the rhetoric or stop government expansion. After all, what you call pandering is really representation, isn't it? Every American gets a vote, and it's reasonable to expect people to vote in their own self interest, so as long there are differences of opinion, there will be clashes in government, and as long as over-the-top rhetoric is effective, it will be employed. I trust our constitutional republic to seek out an equilibrium among the competing forces, meaning that Democratic politicians can continue to pander to the poor -- as somebody has to -- and the opposition party will keep their power to "confiscate wealth" in check.
Acutally, I don't think "wealth confiscation" is an accurate term. Income in a one-year period is not reflective of wealth, just income. So even a 90% income tax (which I think is way too high, by the way) wouldn't confiscate existing wealth, though it could severely hamper one's ability to amass wealth in the first place, creating a more rigid social structure at the very top.
Which brings up another point that others have touched on. Very few people stay in one tax bracket their whole lives. Their cirumstances change, their ability to pay changes, and their tax burden changes with them. Anyone who has only payed the top rate must enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, no?
I would imagine the owners and stockholders of companies with fat defense contracts like Halliburton prove the point perfectly that these wars have benefitted many of those at the top.
Every time the top tax rates are discussed, proof is provided of them and folks with your opinion jump up and retort that the actual EFFECTIVE RATES were different. Okay. Here is your chance. Our side has provided the data on the rates in effect, your side on this effective rate claim has never presented any hard data.
So lets see the hard data on just where these EFFECTIVE RATES were during the Fifties. No "common knowledge". No vague pronouncements. Provide us hard data just like the side talking about the real rates have provided.
From GhostlyJoe
You could take that wisdom to half the threads on this board. Well said.
anyone who pays the top rate has most likely paid the tax burden for many others
how many people were benefited? I'd like some proof for your claims
everyone should pay the same rate-everyone gets the same citizenship benefits
That is absurd and nonsensical. There is no such thing as a TAX BURDEN for others. Every person has a different tax burden and that is the way it is suppose to be.
You want proof that Halliburton benefitted from war? Do you also want me to prove that the sun rose in the east today while we are at it?
but here you go
Halliburton Watch
There is no price for citizenship benefits. We have something called the Constitution which sees to that and makes sure folks like you do not prevail in that sort of scheme. You might want to read it sometime.
If I buy a cheeseburger I pay the same as you do no matter if I make 400,000 more a year
my dentist charges me the same as he does a guy making cubicle bunny wages.
the cars at the dealership where I shop don't have different prices based on income
how many people were benefited? I'd like some proof for your claims
everyone should pay the same rate-everyone gets the same citizenship benefits
anyone who pays the top rate has most likely paid the tax burden for many others
CONTINUAL COSTCO CONFUSION
part 634.
You do not know the difference between the relationship between a government and a citizen in a representative democracy and that of a customer in a commercial business.
Ivy League indeed!
No doubt. But I don't find that improper or unjust as long as its through the legitimate action of government.
why-because you said so-because politicians want to treat people differently to gain power
If I buy a cheeseburger I pay the same as you do no matter if I make 400,000 more a year
my dentist charges me the same as he does a guy making cubicle bunny wages.
the cars at the dealership where I shop don't have different prices based on income
so why should government be different? it wasn't for more than half our history
your assertions have no merit
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?