• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where do entitlements end?

The whole idea was to tax the rich. A large percentage of doctors are what most would call "rich".
Your right some people want to be doctors to help people but believe me I know several people going to be doctors and not one of them brought that up as their reason to be a doctor.

Only a small percent of doctors are even in the top tax rate. no, doctors are not usually rich. At least speaking for myself, "rich" means someone who is making a half million dollars a year or more, and more typically rich people make millions, tens of millions, and even hundreds of millions and billions. I mean sure, some doctors are rich, some inherited money, some are crooks, some scam medicare and medicade, and some just scrimped and saved and make good investments. But very few doctors are in the top 1% - the average 1%er has an income closing in on $1.5 million dollars a year.
 
Given the ever increasing stratification of wealth and income, we are not in danger of that any time soon.

Oh, but we are. We have reached the point where around half of the working population doesn't pay any federal income taxes, life spans are now significantly longer than the typical retirement age, our population is aging, the disability rolls are growing at a rapid pace, and the economy has slowed down. Make no mistake, with the attutide of the population regarding what they think is their birthright, we are heading toward our inability to pay for the masses of emotional children.
 
Oh, but we are. We have reached the point where around half of the working population doesn't pay any federal income taxes

You speak of that as if it is a bad thing. Thats actually a much higher percentage of people paying income tax than paid it when it was first established. Personally, I would like to see it where almost no one paid federal income taxes. I don't like taxes.

, life spans are now significantly longer than the typical retirement age, our population is aging, the disability rolls are growing at a rapid pace, and the economy has slowed down. Make no mistake, with the attutide of the population regarding what they think is their birthright, we are heading toward our inability to pay for the masses of emotional children.

Old retired people are "emotional children"??? I don't get it. If they paid into the medicare and social security system all their lives, don't they deserve to get what they were promised? Do you just hate retired people?
 
Where do entitlements end? Bankruptcy of the country. Total collapse when the productive can no longer produce enough to sustain the ever growing non-productive members of society.
ie. Collapse of this country - rotting from the inside out. The question is, will we go quietly into the night or will there be enough people to fight for saving it and rebuild? Societal collapse, discontent, then economic ruin as we cannot sustain our spending, finally cultural disorganization and violence. Sounds like a wonderful future.
 
You speak of that as if it is a bad thing. Thats actually a much higher percentage of people paying income tax than paid it when it was first established. Personally, I would like to see it where almost no one paid federal income taxes. I don't like taxes.

Well, that sounds great, but we have way too much **** to pay for these days. Back when 1% of the population paid taxes, we primarily paid war debt, post office fees, and interstate regulation needs.

Old retired people are "emotional children"??? I don't get it. If they paid into the medicare and social security system all their lives, don't they deserve to get what they were promised? Do you just hate retired people?

It has nothing to do with old retired people. It's an entire mindset that our populace has bought into, as a result of government taking on the responsibility for the monetary security of its citizens. It's not just the elderly by a long shot.
 
Idiotic. There would be absolutely no reason for the employer to give into Sally's demands. Sally doesn't have a choice, without the "subsidy," her choices are take what she can get or live in the streets. If Sally doesn't want the minimum wage job, Jimmy will take it just so he can eat. Most people on welfare already have a job. What, give them another? Doing what? Who is going to take care of their children while they work these extra hours?

It's not about being lazy. People need to get that wildly inaccurate stereotype out of their heads.
If this was the Bush years then I'd say phuck off Sally, go get a freakin' job.

But under the current economy, there is no decent jobs out there for Sally to take.

In my city, nowadays, a new union factory job at GM only pays $15/hr fer crissakes. This is what Obama is touting as his great job recovery. Working at the Powertrain auto transmission plant used to be considered to be a decent job.
 
Last edited:
If this was the Bush years then I'd say phuck off Sally, go get a freakin' job.

But under the current economy, there is no decent jobs out there for Sally to take.

In my city, nowadays, a new union factory job at GM only pays $15/hr fer crissakes. This is what Obama is touting as his great job recovery. Working at the Powertrain auto transmission plant used to be considered to be a decent job.

Non union factory jobs at BMW (the largest employer in my county) pay about the same thing here, and I but our cost of living is much lower here. Maybe those union workers should consider kicking out the union so that they dont have to pay dues anymore.

Anyhow, we are talking unskilled labor arn't we? $15 an hour for unskilled labor aint too shabby round these parts.
 
I found this posted on another forum, and it was so well written, I also wanted to see what people here would have to say about this one.

The same questions can be asked regarding military spending as well as corporate subsidies and tax breaks.

Let me give you my opinion on it in all seriousness.

I want goods and services to be provided with the most efficiency. However, businesses aren't interested in efficiency. They are interested in profit. Which means they will put up with inefficiencies in order to generate profit for those in control of the business.

And when a business gets too inefficient in providing a good or service, and if that good or service is a necessity, then the government has the right and duty to take over for the management of that good or service.

That's why I'm starting to consider myself a socialist Republican. I'm all for private businesses managing necessary resources until they mismanage it too much for the well being of their own executives and shareholders rather than for their clients and customers. Once that happens, it becomes necessary for the government to provide management of that resource instead.

So that's where I draw the line.
 
I didn't say anyting about keeping people from getting wealthy. I suggested that taxes on the uber wealthy should be much higher. so what gives them the drive to produce? The exact same thing that gives them that drive now. Doesn't matter if it is pride, or greed, or just the love of what they do, they would keep doing it regardless of what the tax rate is. People don't start businesses with the expectation of making hundreds of millions of dollars. I started a business some 22 years ago and while I may have occasionally daydreamed about becoming rich, becoming rich was never the driving force behind me starting a business. I started a business because I wanted to work for myself. Nothing more, nothing less. It wouldn't have mattered if the top tax rate was 1% or 99%, I still would have started my business. When you talking about starting businesses, what you miss is that people who mearly own shares of someone elses business are only taxed at 15% while people like me who actively manage their own business are ALREADY taxed at a top rate of 35%. So if paying higher taxes was a disincentive to start businesses, no one would have started a business during the past few decades. Obviously people did start businesses, so your theory is shot all to hell.

And who would want to be a doctor? I guess the same people who want to be doctors today. I NEVER suggested a higher tax on doctors. You see, doctors arn't rich. The averge GP only makes about $120,000. Thats less than half way to the top tax rate (which I would move up even further to at least $400k). Even the average doctor specialist only makes about $400k. Heck, if I had my way I wouldn't even start taxing income until we hit $400k or maybe even higher. Just to put into perspective what rich really is, top compensated hedge fund managers can make more money in a year than all the doctors in a mid sized hospital will make in there entire lifetimes put together. Bernie Madoff STOLE more money in his career than probably all the doctors in an average STATE would make in their entire lifetimes.

Now since we have moved on to looking at economic history, the best time in history for our economy was during the 1950's when we had a top income tax rate of about 90%. Of course conservatives don't like to study history - it doesn't tend to favor their arguements.

The very wealthy would only flee if we had a tax on wealth. I am not suggesting a higher tax on wealth, I am suggesting a higher tax on income. Now if you think that the uber wealthy can give up US citizenship and find a country with no taxes, like hmm, Somolia, and have a better life, then more power to them. Whats odd is that we already have higher taxes than some countries, but most of those countries are not exactly desireable countries to live in. Most desireable countries have tax rates about the same as ours or higher, even much higher. So why arn't our richest citizens fleeing the country like crazy? Why is NYC full of rich FOREIGNERS?

I believe by necessity the "uber-wealthy" will need to pick up more of the burden we face. Of course in the context of entitlements, you could tax the "uber-wealthy" until the cows come home, and not make much of a dent.

Citing the 1950s as an example is kind of comparing apples and oranges. The economic realities are so different as to be different universes. In the 50s we had zero competition in anything really. Europe and Japan were still a shambles and a large part of the rest of the world was stuck somewhere between the 19th & 14th centuries or hiding behind the iron curtain. We also had a major housing boom from returning vets, I could go on.

If you want to talk history we should be talking about what happens, historically, when we raise taxes on anybody. We raise a dollar in taxes then we spend 2. That's my biggest beef. At the end of the day I'd rather the "uber-wealthy" keep their money as opposed to the govt taking it and creating some new entitlement that will of course outgrow it's intended revenue source in no time and eventually burden our grandchildren a little more.

Going back to the fifties I think we got so much more for our dollar. Airports, interstate highways, hospitals, schools, dams, etc. Now I'm funding free cell phones. Of course this time we're going to fix infrastructure and cut future spending.
 
Entitlements will end when the 1% pay their fair share and when the GOP stops running around trying to take away our right to contraceptives. I say access to contraceptives now, contraceptives yesterday and contraceptives tomorrow. Entitlements can only end when we as a society give back and serve the health and well being of the masses properly, efficiently and entirely. No more of this I'm taxed too much mantra from the right. Its not a question of when entitlements will end but when are we going to get serious as a society and finally give entitlements their due course and proper funding.
 
So my question is this, if everything you need and want is taken care of by our "big brother" where is the incentive to work for anything? Freedom from want and need breeds complacency.

A mistaken notion.

 
Entitlements will end when the 1% 53% [edited for accuracy] pay their fair share and when the GOP stops running around trying to take away our right to contraceptives.

The GOP is not trying to take away anyone's right to contraceptives, unless, by “right”, you mean someone else should be forced to pay for your contraceptives, instead of you paying for your own. On the other hand, from the rest of your posting, it seems a safe guess that that's exactly what you meant.
 
Given the ever increasing stratification of wealth and income, we are not in danger of that any time soon.

If 50% of taxpayers are paying taxes and 50% don't pay taxes, we might, as a country, keep your head above water for a time. What happens when that ratio is 40% paying and 60% not paying. Where do we get the extra money to pay our debts?
 
If 50% of taxpayers are paying taxes and 50% don't pay taxes, we might, as a country, keep your head above water for a time. What happens when that ratio is 40% paying and 60% not paying. Where do we get the extra money to pay our debts?


When income tax was first invented 99% did not pay income taxes and only 1% did. Income tax is not a neccessity for government to operate, nor is it an neccessity for the majority to pay income tax.
 
If 50% of taxpayers are paying taxes and 50% don't pay taxes, we might, as a country, keep your head above water for a time. What happens when that ratio is 40% paying and 60% not paying. Where do we get the extra money to pay our debts?

Way more than 50% of the population pays taxes. So, yeah, maybe this scenario of yours would be a bad thing, but fortunately that's not in danger of happening.
 
When income tax was first invented 99% did not pay income taxes and only 1% did. Income tax is not a neccessity for government to operate, nor is it an neccessity for the majority to pay income tax.

As I said earlier, the federal government did not have nearly the social indebtedness and other unnecessary expenses that we have now. When 1% were paying taxes, we didn't have Medicare and the SS system as it is now. Are you aware that around 1/5 of the population is receiving social security and/or SSI currently? That number is pretty astounding as it is, and the boomers are just now starting to retire and apply for benefits to the tune of 10,000 per day, with lifespans much higher than they used to be, and most SS recipients receiving far more back than they ever paid in. Add to that, Medicare spending currently outpaces SS benefits, as most SS recipients are on health care programs as well.





from wiki: In the long-run, expenditures related to healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are projected to grow faster than the economy overall as the population matures.
CBO expects Medicare and Medicaid to continue growing, rising from 5.3% GDP in 2009 to 10.0% in 2035 and 19.0% by 2082
 
The GOP is not trying to take away anyone's right to contraceptives, unless, by “right”, you mean someone else should be forced to pay for your contraceptives, instead of you paying for your own. On the other hand, from the rest of your posting, it seems a safe guess that that's exactly what you meant.

it just feels good sometimes to whine and complain...
 
When income tax was first invented 99% did not pay income taxes and only 1% did. Income tax is not a neccessity for government to operate, nor is it an neccessity for the majority to pay income tax.


I'm sure that when "99% did not pay income taxes and only 1% did" there were no bridges to nowhere, no university studies about shrimp on treadmills, no Cowboy Poetry festivals, etc. etc. being paid for by the 1%.

"Used to be's" aren't gonna play today. I still ask . . . what happens when 40% are paying taxes and 60% aren't?
 
Way more than 50% of the population pays taxes. So, yeah, maybe this scenario of yours would be a bad thing, but fortunately that's not in danger of happening.

That's good to know. Could you show your data that back's up your "this ain't gonna happen" scenario? Also, would you please give me your link that shows "more than 50%" are paying Federal Income Tax now. I haven't seen this, thanks.
 
That's good to know. Could you show your data that back's up your "this ain't gonna happen" scenario? Also, would you please give me your link that shows "more than 50%" are paying Federal Income Tax now. I haven't seen this, thanks.

Oh, wait, now it's specifically federal income taxes? That isn't what you said before. Make up your mind on the goalposts and get back to me.
 
Oh, wait, now it's specifically federal income taxes? That isn't what you said before. Make up your mind on the goalposts and get back to me.

OK, tell me do you get back any of the taxes you pay on your electric bill, phone bill, water/sewage bill, grocery bill, clothing bill, etc back? If so, get back with me and tell me how you did it.
 
OK, tell me do you get back any of the taxes you pay on your electric bill, phone bill, water/sewage bill, grocery bill, clothing bill, etc back? If so, get back with me and tell me how you did it.

You talked about 50% "not paying taxes."

"Not paying taxes" and "not paying federal income taxes" aren't the same thing. Everyone pays taxes.
 
You talked about 50% "not paying taxes."

"Not paying taxes" and "not paying federal income taxes" aren't the same thing. Everyone pays taxes.

Right. Of course I was talking about the "little" taxes added onto every bill we get. That's what this thread is all about. Typical.
 
There are red snapper in Lake Michigan???
 
Back
Top Bottom