non-working welfare owners (1 Viewer)

[dstebbins]

It is common knowledge that people abuse the welfare program. They will get laid off from their job, apply for unemployment insurance, and never work another day in their life because they don't have to; their check will come to them every month.

I thinK I know of a way to solve this: Instead of handing out free money to those who were laid off, let's have the government be more directly involved in getting them new jobs. If they don't like the job appointed them and/or want to do something else, they can always keep searching for a more pleasurable job in their spare time and, if they find it, quite the job the government gave them. If it comes down to it (and by "it," I mean no company will give the person a job), put them to work in community service. If they quit or are fired for a leginemit reason, then, just like you don't get welfare now, you won't get help under this plan. Basically, this plan works exactly like unemployment insurance, with the same loopholes and exceptions, but instead you are assigned a job instead of getting free money to sit on your ass and do nothing.

Your first defense is probably going to be that this is communism. Not necissarily. In communist countries, the government literally owns the corporations. Under this plan, the corporation would merely be working with the government on a "you scratch my belly, I'll scratch your's" basis. Besides, even if it was communism, may I point out that there are only two things we Americans dislike about communism. One is the abuse of civil rights. Communism could have worked if civil rights were honored. The second is the fact that there are no choices. The American Dream is all about getting ahead through hard work and dedication. In Communism, no matter how hard you work, you're only chance of getting ahead is working for the legislative body of the government. If these two things were different, we probably would have switched to communism along with the Soviet Union.

So now that I've given my proposal and came back on the likely first defense, why don't you give me your two cents?

 

[Engimo]

It is common knowledge that people abuse the welfare program. They will get laid off from their job, apply for unemployment insurance, and never work another day in their life because they don't have to; their check will come to them every month.

I thinK I know of a way to solve this: Instead of handing out free money to those who were laid off, let's have the government be more directly involved in getting them new jobs. If they don't like the job appointed them and/or want to do something else, they can always keep searching for a more pleasurable job in their spare time and, if they find it, quite the job the government gave them. If it comes down to it (and by "it," I mean no company will give the person a job), put them to work in community service. If they quit or are fired for a leginemit reason, then, just like you don't get welfare now, you won't get help under this plan. Basically, this plan works exactly like unemployment insurance, with the same loopholes and exceptions, but instead you are assigned a job instead of getting free money to sit on your ass and do nothing.

Your first defense is probably going to be that this is communism. Not necissarily. In communist countries, the government literally owns the corporations. Under this plan, the corporation would merely be working with the government on a "you scratch my belly, I'll scratch your's" basis. Besides, even if it was communism, may I point out that there are only two things we Americans dislike about communism. One is the abuse of civil rights. Communism could have worked if civil rights were honored. The second is the fact that there are no choices. The American Dream is all about getting ahead through hard work and dedication. In Communism, no matter how hard you work, you're only chance of getting ahead is working for the legislative body of the government. If these two things were different, we probably would have switched to communism along with the Soviet Union.

So now that I've given my proposal and came back on the likely first defense, why don't you give me your two cents?

Your "common knowledge" is wrong. Over 75% of people are off of welfare within 5 years of going on it, with the majority of them finishing even before that. The idea of the "welfare queen" who mooches off the system is more often than not just that - an idea. A myth.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm

Percent of
Time on AFDC Recipients (8)
-------------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6

 

[dstebbins]

Your "common knowledge" is wrong. Over 75% of people are off of welfare within 5 years of going on it, with the majority of them finishing even before that. The idea of the "welfare queen" who mooches off the system is more often than not just that - an idea. A myth.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm

possibly, but you know good and well that there are a select few minorities abusing the welfare program. I know of one person right off the bat. He's dead now, but he damaged his back and got on disability. He never worked another day in his life because he was too damn lazy to get off his ass and work, even though he had the mind to be an excellent architect (you should see some of his floor plans. Stunning). He threw it all away because he could.

You mention "over 75%." What about a one percent minority?

Besides, if those people were given jobs right from the get-go instead of getting free money, then that would cut back on the welfare spending dramatically, even if they aren't abusing it. This would cut federal spending, thus reducing the deficit, thus improving the economy, making it easier to find jobs on your own.

 

[Engimo]

possibly, but you know good and well that there are a select few minorities abusing the welfare program. I know of one person right off the bat. He's dead now, but he damaged his back and got on disability. He never worked another day in his life because he was too damn lazy to get off his ass and work, even though he had the mind to be an excellent architect (you should see some of his floor plans. Stunning). He threw it all away because he could.

You mention "over 75%." What about a one percent minority?

Besides, if those people were given jobs right from the get-go instead of getting free money, then that would cut back on the welfare spending dramatically, even if they aren't abusing it. This would cut federal spending, thus reducing the deficit, thus improving the economy, making it easier to find jobs on your own.

Yes, but most people that are on welfare use their time and energy on finding new jobs or attending school that trains them to get better jobs than they had before. Forcing people into jobs is not going to help them, unless it is a job that inherently has upward mobility or is something that they want to do. If they're working, how can they spend time looking for better work? They end up being locked into a job that they may not want.

If anything, you can advocate reforms to make it hard for people to mooch off of welfare (which, by and large, exist since the 1996 welfare reforms), but forcing people into jobs does not seem like a good idea to me.

 

[dstebbins]

Yes, but most people that are on welfare use their time and energy on finding new jobs or attending school that trains them to get better jobs than they had before. Forcing people into jobs is not going to help them, unless it is a job that inherently has upward mobility or is something that they want to do. If they're working, how can they spend time looking for better work? They end up being locked into a job that they may not want.

If anything, you can advocate reforms to make it hard for people to mooch off of welfare (which, by and large, exist since the 1996 welfare reforms), but forcing people into jobs does not seem like a good idea to me.

you wouldn't be forced into anything. The thirteenth amendment bans involuntary servitude, so that would be unconstitutional. You can still quite the job if you want, and you can ask to be demoted to part-time status so that you can go to school. Now you can't tell me that most college students enjoy their sources of income, now can you? Most students hate working at fast food chains, but it's all they've got to pay the bill. However, they're making a much more honest living than people who sit on their ass and drink beer waiting for the check to come.

I take it you don't have nigers in your town. I'm not talking about blacks. I'm talking about nigers; it just so happens that most nigers are black. By niger, I mean someone who will not go out and work for their family. There were mass quantities of them in my old city, and the only contribution they made to society were the jailbirds who picked up garbage.

Again, you wouldn't be forced into anything other than a part-time living, which college students have to do anyway, so this is not unprecedented. If we're going to wipe the ass of someone who scraped their knee, we should also wipe the asses of college students

 

[The Real McCoy]

Communism could have worked if civil rights were honored.

No, communism has never existed.

The second is the fact that there are no choices. The American Dream is all about getting ahead through hard work and dedication.

Hard work is a choice. Being lazy is also a choice.

In Communism, no matter how hard you work, you're only chance of getting ahead is working for the legislative body of the government.

Perhaps you're thinking of socialism. Communism is a fantasy where there is no government.

If these two things were different, we probably would have switched to communism along with the Soviet Union.

You mean socialism.

 

[dstebbins]

Hard work is a choice. Being lazy is also a choice.

But in communism/socialism (whichever you want to call it), you don't have the choice. You have to work or else you're punished or even killed.

Perhaps you're thinking of socialism. Communism is a fantasy where there is no government.

That's anarchism.

You mean socialism.

whatever.

 

[The Real McCoy]

But in communism/socialism (whichever you want to call it), you don't have the choice. You have to work or else you're punished or even killed.

True, I skimmed through your post so I obviously missed that.

That's anarchism.

Communism is a form of anarchism.

whatever.

I thought they were basically the same. Comrade Brian brought me up to speed on the difference.

 

[The Real McCoy]

But in communism/socialism (whichever you want to call it), you don't have the choice. You have to work or else you're punished or even killed.

True, I skimmed through your post so I obviously missed that.

That's anarchism.

Communism is a form of anarchism.

whatever.

I thought they were basically the same. Comrade Brian brought me up to speed on the difference.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Communism is a form of anarchism.

Not exactly. In communism a form of government I think would exist, though this topic often depends on the communist's personal view. Though communism is stateless, which is like no national boundry, military, etc.
Though I think if there would be a govt. it would be decentralized.

 

[Comrade Brian]

But in communism/socialism (whichever you want to call it), you don't have the choice. You have to work or else you're punished or even killed.

First don't use communism/socialism interchangeably, maybe if this was 200 yrs. ago they would mean the same thing, but now they don't. Second communism, Ancient communism has existed(early communal societies), Modern communism hasn't(described by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, etc.) Thirdly, socialism isn't widespread, I view the USSR as a deformed socialist state, and W. Europe as a very moderate one and still has its basis as capitalism. Fourthly, I have yet to see a "communist" or "socialist" support killing those who don't work. Fifthly, In communism I expect a form of punishment for those who don't work, but I think that this punishment would be fairly moderate, and stop when they start working. Sixthly, socialism is the path to communism, in socialism is when classes disappear, property is transfered from private to communal, and then state to communal, borders disappear, and the state dies away after it has been dying for a while, when all the objectives for the arrival of communism to be filled.

 

[Axismaster]

First don't use communism/socialism interchangeably, maybe if this was 200 yrs. ago they would mean the same thing, but now they don't. Second communism, Ancient communism has existed(early communal societies), Modern communism hasn't(described by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, etc.) Thirdly, socialism isn't widespread, I view the USSR as a deformed socialist state, and W. Europe as a very moderate one and still has its basis as capitalism. Fourthly, I have yet to see a "communist" or "socialist" support killing those who don't work. Fifthly, In communism I expect a form of punishment for those who don't work, but I think that this punishment would be fairly moderate, and stop when they start working. Sixthly, socialism is the path to communism, in socialism is when classes disappear, property is transfered from private to communal, and then state to communal, borders disappear, and the state dies away after it has been dying for a while, when all the objectives for the arrival of communism to be filled.

Okay then Mr. Anarcho-Communist. What about those of us who like the free market. Should we be forced to take up the communist lifestyle?

 

[The Real McCoy]

First don't use communism/socialism interchangeably, maybe if this was 200 yrs. ago they would mean the same thing, but now they don't. Second communism, Ancient communism has existed(early communal societies), Modern communism hasn't(described by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, etc.) Thirdly, socialism isn't widespread, I view the USSR as a deformed socialist state, and W. Europe as a very moderate one and still has its basis as capitalism. Fourthly, I have yet to see a "communist" or "socialist" support killing those who don't work. Fifthly, In communism I expect a form of punishment for those who don't work, but I think that this punishment would be fairly moderate, and stop when they start working. Sixthly, socialism is the path to communism, in socialism is when classes disappear, property is transfered from private to communal, and then state to communal, borders disappear, and the state dies away after it has been dying for a while, when all the objectives for the arrival of communism to be filled.

Few questions.

1) Given human nature, how does this large central government that made socialism possible, disappear?

2) What are the objectives for the arrival of communism?

3) Without the state, what authority is to prevent markets from forming?

 

[Axismaster]

Few questions.

1) Given human nature, how does this large central government that made socialism possible, disappear?

2) What are the objectives for the arrival of communism?

3) Without the state, what authority is to prevent markets from forming?

The point you have made is very true, communism is literally IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Okay then Mr. Anarcho-Communist

I'm not an anarcho-communist. A communist wishes to see the state fade away. An anarcho-communist wishes to abolish the state, anarcho-communists are usually also rather utopian.

What about those of us who like the free market

Do you mean capitalism? The amount of support for capitalism will have about the same support as fuedalism has now, probably less, because in capitalism there are huge inequalities, now in communism, inequality will be virtually nonexistant, though there will be some, e.g., if someone has a wheelchair because they need it, and someone else has a wheelchair and doesn't need it, that would be totally equal, now communism is based upon needs, so if the person didn't need it he shall not have it, unless needed. Also ideologies reflect on the society, if the mass of people want a change in society, then that means society is in a bad shape, if no one wants to change then it is in good shape.

Should we be forced to take up the communist lifestyle?

What kind of question is that? I am forced to live under capitalism and adhere to the lifestyle, same as everyone else. Freedom like that I find is impossible.

1) Given human nature

Define "human nature".

how does this large central government that made socialism possible, disappear?

For one socialism is NOT a statist ideology, the only socialists that I find that want to have some ultra-large state, are the same people who worship Stalin and that mumbo jumbo, also Lenin did say something quite excellent on this subject: “The proletariat needs a state—this all the opportunists can tell you, but they, the opportunists, forget to add that the proletariat needs only a dying state—that is, a state constructed in such a way that it immediately begins to die away and cannot help dying away."

2) What are the objectives for the arrival of communism?

The parameters of communism(stateless, classless, moneyless, etc. etc.)

Without the state, what authority is to prevent markets from forming?

There is no virtually private property, so people have nothing to really buy and sell.

how does this large central government that made socialism possible

Also another matter on the state, state-owned property is also a form of private property, except instead of a business or corporation or businessman or whatever owning it the state does, can be only used by what the state wants.

The point you have made is very true, communism is literally IMPOSSIBLE.

Right, whatever.

 

[dstebbins]

Okay can we PLEASE get back on topic? I'm trying to propose a welfare program reform.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Do you mean capitalism? The amount of support for capitalism will have about the same support as fuedalism has now, probably less, because in capitalism there are huge inequalities, now in communism, inequality will be virtually nonexistant, though there will be some, e.g., if someone has a wheelchair because they need it, and someone else has a wheelchair and doesn't need it, that would be totally equal, now communism is based upon needs, so if the person didn't need it he shall not have it, unless needed. Also ideologies reflect on the society, if the mass of people want a change in society, then that means society is in a bad shape, if no one wants to change then it is in good shape.

See, the problem I have here is that some are simply NOT equal. A doctor must attend 10-12 years or so of higher education while a janitor, cashier, warehouseman, etc. needs none. What incentive is there to pursue jobs like doctors and lawyers?

Define "human nature".

Selfish.

For one socialism is NOT a statist ideology, the only socialists that I find that want to have some ultra-large state, are the same people who worship Stalin and that mumbo jumbo, also Lenin did say something quite excellent on this subject: “The proletariat needs a state—this all the opportunists can tell you, but they, the opportunists, forget to add that the proletariat needs only a dying state—that is, a state constructed in such a way that it immediately begins to die away and cannot help dying away."

But a large government makes socialism possible. It's necessary to redistribute wealth and provide people with education, health care, etc. I can't possibly seeing that fading away.

The parameters of communism(stateless, classless, moneyless, etc. etc.)

So no doctors? No professors? No lawyers?

There's no real incentive to pursue these vital careers. Granted, some may but there'd be some serious shortages.

There is no virtually private property, so people have nothing to really buy and sell.

No private property? So my alarm clock that wakes me up for work is community property? My furniture is community property? The clothes I wear are community property?

 

[Stinger]

Every state has a state employment office where workers can go and seek jobs and employers can list open jobs. Most states have working training programs that work with private businesses to help train workers, the state even picking up some of the tab as an incentive to attract companies. The best way to get the employee and employer together is stop paying employees not to work, ie the welfare state. The welfare reforms that the Republicans forced Bill Clinton to sign did a lot of that, we could do more.

I'll give you an anecdotal story from back in the 80's before we finally reformed welfare. In some article of the times I read it reported that the government (state/federal funded and run) jobs training program was turning out somthing like 160,000 cosmotologist (formerly known as beauticians) every year, the problem was the market only needed about 60,000 of them. So people trained for jobs that weren't needed but government is so inflexible so slow to react that this is the result.

 

[oldreliable67]

They will get laid off from their job, apply for unemployment insurance, and never work another day in their life because they don't have to; their check will come to them every month.

You are confusing unemployment insurance with other forms of welfare. They are quite different. Unemployment insurance is funded by the federal government but administered by the states. In times other than serious recessions, the maximum number of weeks that one can receive unemployment insurance compensation is 26. During times of serious economic recession, the federal government will sometimes add another 26 weeks, making it possible for some laid off during that period of time to draw unemployment compensation for a total of 52 weeks.

In order to qualify for any further unemployment compensation, a laid off worker has to go back to work an be employed for a period of time - unfortunately, I've forgotten what the time is, but IIRC, its 8 quarters or two years.

 

[Picaro]

I certainly agree welfare reform is necessary. In the U.S. it fails miserably, and needs to be revamped entirely to become a real safety net. This country spends more on pet food than welfare, and more needs to be spent on making it a truly effective means of getting people self-sufficient.

Big government is a product of big business, not leftist radicalism. The U.S. practices socialism for the rich and politically connected, and reserves 'competition' for the lower classes, mainly labor. Big multinationals only exist in concert with large government programs to subsidize them and large military budgets to protect them from their victims.

There is no such thing as a 'free market system', and never has been. It is merely a propoganda term. Capitalism, or 'laissez faire' Capitalism to be specific, relies on poverty to concentrate wealth into a few hands, and couldn't exist without a large population of desperately poor. In the U.S. they had to import poverty early on, and then had to revert to slavery when they couldn't kidnap enough Europeans, in order to keep as many people poor and broke as possible. Nobody who could homestead 60 acres of arable land cheap and work for themselves was going to stand in a factory for 16 hours a day at less than subsistence wages.

When the programs of Roosevelt, and later the Great Society programs of the 1960's created a large middle class and strong labor unions, this country acheived a standard of living second to none, with the exception of maybe Switzerland or Sweden. The big money hates that, it makes them have to pay market rates for labor, and since the 1980's they have been importing poverty from Mexico and other places around the world, and have succeeded in artificially dropping wages to less than 50% of their levels in the early 1970's, and are frantically working to get them down to Red Chinese levels.

Many Americans are happy to cut their own throats and help them do this, under the delusion that they're 'special' and a bunch of ass kissing will get them favors later on, or they think that 100 shares of Ponzi Scheme International in their 401K's makes them have something in common with J.P. Morgan or John Rockefeller, and will inevitably be worth millions when they retire, just because they read in the Wall Street Journal how great an 'investment' it was. Rather than face the truth of the matter, they find some suitably right wing editorial page to parrot and then rave about a virtually nonexistent 'welfare system', lazy bums, etc. The fact is, the higher income people recieve far more welfare in a real sense than some $8 an hour maid gets, by far, and do far less work for it.

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about stockholders in WalMart, Haliburton, Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and the Bush family.

 

[The Real McCoy]

I certainly agree welfare reform is necessary. In the U.S. it fails miserably, and needs to be revamped entirely to become a real safety net. This country spends more on pet food than welfare,

You got a source for that?

and more needs to be spent on making it a truly effective means of getting people self-sufficient.

Simply throwing more money at the problem isn't an effective solution.

The U.S. practices socialism for the rich and politically connected, and reserves 'competition' for the lower classes, mainly labor.

No, even the rich and the biggest multi-nationals are not exempt from competition. Companies like Wal-Mart must stay competitive or suffer revenue/profit loss. The only entity that does not compete is the federal government.

Big multinationals only exist in concert with large government programs to subsidize them and large military budgets to protect them from their victims.

Not all multi-nationals are recipients of government subsidies.

There is no such thing as a 'free market system', and never has been. It is merely a propoganda term.

Depends how you're using the term. In most cases, you're right.. the government intervenes too much in the market.

Capitalism, or 'laissez faire' Capitalism to be specific, relies on poverty to concentrate wealth into a few hands, and couldn't exist without a large population of desperately poor.

Wealth is not stagnant as you seem to portray it. Capital is created through entreprenuership, innovation, new technologies, etc.

It's not perfect, but find me a human system sans a competitive market that's any better.

In the U.S. they had to import poverty early on, and then had to revert to slavery when they couldn't kidnap enough Europeans, in order to keep as many people poor and broke as possible. Nobody who could homestead 60 acres of arable land cheap and work for themselves was going to stand in a factory for 16 hours a day at less than subsistence wages.

Okay.

this country acheived a standard of living second to none, with the exception of maybe Switzerland or Sweden. The big money hates that, it makes them have to pay market rates for labor

Now you're confusing me. First you were advocating government programs and mandated wages, etc. Now you're saying "big money" hates having to pay market rates. Which is it?

and since the 1980's they have been importing poverty from Mexico and other places around the world

Migrant workers come here of their own free will.

and have succeeded in artificially dropping wages to less than 50% of their levels in the early 1970's, and are frantically working to get them down to Red Chinese levels.

Hardly. Manufacturing industries outsource to countries like China because the labor is cheap. Service sector and other domestic employers must pay competitive rates or face productivity or worker loss.

Many Americans are happy to cut their own throats and help them do this, under the delusion that they're 'special' and a bunch of ass kissing will get them favors later on, or they think that 100 shares of Ponzi Scheme International in their 401K's makes them have something in common with J.P. Morgan or John Rockefeller, and will inevitably be worth millions when they retire, just because they read in the Wall Street Journal how great an 'investment' it was.

They're stupid if they think that.

Rather than face the truth of the matter, they find some suitably right wing editorial page to parrot and then rave about a virtually nonexistent 'welfare system', lazy bums, etc. The fact is, the higher income people recieve far more welfare in a real sense than some $8 an hour maid gets, by far, and do far less work for it.

No, the higher income receivers pay a huge chunk of the taxes to fund the welfare system.

 

[Slantedfacts]

Here are a few stats on who pays what percentage of their income into taxes:

27.5% or 72 1/2 cents of your earned dollar is yours if your taxable income is over:

SINGLE - $27,050

Married filing joint or qualifying widow(er) - $45,200

30.5% = 69 1/2 cents of your dollar in your pocket if your taxable income is over:

SINGLE - $65,550

Married filing joint or qualifying widow(er) - $109,250

35.5% = 64 1/2 cents of each dollar is paid after tax if your taxable income is over:

SINGLE - $136,750

Married filing joint or qualifying widow(er) - $166,500

39.1% - under 61-cents (0.609 %) per earned dollar in your pocket if your taxable income is over:

SINGLE - $297,350

Married filing joint or qualifying widow(er) - $297,350

So, 72 1/2 cents per dollar ($72.50 per hundred) is yours on the low end and on the higher end you get to keep under 61% of every dollar ($60.90 per hundred earned).

That is 11.6 cents per earned taxed dollar different between the low and high wages - yeah - gotta love EQUALITY!

www.quicken.com's Tax Table Article

 

[Engimo]

Here are a few stats on who pays what percentage of their income into taxes:

27.5% or 72 1/2 cents of your earned dollar is yours if your taxable income is over:

SINGLE - $27,050

Married filing joint or qualifying widow(er) - $45,200

30.5% = 69 1/2 cents of your dollar in your pocket if your taxable income is over:

SINGLE - $65,550

Married filing joint or qualifying widow(er) - $109,250

35.5% = 64 1/2 cents of each dollar is paid after tax if your taxable income is over:

SINGLE - $136,750

Married filing joint or qualifying widow(er) - $166,500

39.1% - under 61-cents (0.609 %) per earned dollar in your pocket if your taxable income is over:

SINGLE - $297,350

Married filing joint or qualifying widow(er) - $297,350

So, 72 1/2 cents per dollar ($72.50 per hundred) is yours on the low end and on the higher end you get to keep under 61% of every dollar ($60.90 per hundred earned).

That is 11.6 cents per earned taxed dollar different between the low and high wages - yeah - gotta love EQUALITY!

www.quicken.com's Tax Table Article

Uh, who's talking about taxes? Not only that, it's well-known that we have a progressive taxing system. Percentages are meaningless when you're talking about the differences between the upper and lower echelons of the income brackets.

 

[Picaro]

Uh, who's talking about taxes? Not only that, it's well-known that we have a progressive taxing system. Percentages are meaningless when you're talking about the differences between the upper and lower echelons of the income brackets.

Yes. As an example of how ridiculous the tax code is in the U.S., the local paper ran a long article, written by the manager of a tax preparing firm, that pointed out a single person making $8 an hour could end up paying some $170 or so more to the Feds than a two income husband and wife pulling in $60K a year, with all the deductions the $60K income household could afford to take that are on the books that lower income people can't qualify for. It's utterly ridiculous.

 

[Engimo]

Yes. As an example of how ridiculous the tax code is in the U.S., the local paper ran a long article, written by the manager of a tax preparing firm, that pointed out a single person making $8 an hour could end up paying some $170 or so more to the Feds than a two income husband and wife pulling in $60K a year, with all the deductions the $60K income household could afford to take that are on the books that lower income people can't qualify for. It's utterly ridiculous.

Indeed. Also, when you are talking about people with lower income, they need to spend most of their money just to live.

Say that I make $30,000 a year and I pay 30% taxes on that $30,000. That's $9,000 in taxes, leaving me with $21,000 after taxes.

Now, suppose that I make $300,000 a year and I pay 40% of my income as tax. That's $120,000 in taxes, leaving me with $180,000 after taxes.

Sure, the rich guy pays more in percentage, but when you have a lower income even smaller percentages can equate to a large difference in quality of life and ability to survive. That $9,000 that the poorer guy pays is a lot more detrimental to him than the $120,000 that the $300,000/year guy is paying.