Sport Bikes banner

61 - 73 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,682 Posts
Keith_J said:
Giving incentives to be poor only increases it. Yes, if you want to end poverty, STOP FUNDING IT! Cold hearted but reality.

If you want to decrease a behavior, TAX IT. If you want to foster a behavior, FUND IT!.

Instead we tax prosperity and fund poverty, then wonder why we have problems.
So what exactly are these "incentives?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
778 Posts
poulsen said:
No I haven't been to China but my dad and ex gf have and they both liked it. About March last year my dad's company posted a job offer in Beijing that we tried to get (and almost did) but we think they already had someone picked out and the posting was merely a formality. I was about to transfer my records (I was a junior in high school at the time) to the International School of Beijing. We came close but it just didn't happen.

And I've been talking to some guys who work for companies that outsource to China and they say the guys the company sends out there get paid really really well plus other nice benefits. It sounds good to me so that's what I'm working towards.
Commie bastard.... :upyours

EDIT: before you get your panties in a bunch i'm just kidding
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
jim schmidt said:
So what exactly are these "incentives?"
AFDC, EIC, USDA WIC, progressive taxation rates, welfare, Social Security for non-payees, means testing of benefits, Medicaid, Medicare...need I say more?

When over half of the annual spending goes to entitlement programs and is therefore, not provided for in the United State's Constitution, there is the problem. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
Private banks are only facilitators in deficit spending. The spenders are elected represenatives...Congress, that is. They are the ones who spend. Sure, the executive approves this spending BUT without line item veto power, it is only an up or down vote.

The questions of defense, interstate commerce or national needs are rarely asked. And therefore, most spending is unconstitutional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,682 Posts
Keith_J said:
AFDC, EIC, USDA WIC, progressive taxation rates, welfare, Social Security for non-payees, means testing of benefits, Medicaid, Medicare...need I say more?

When over half of the annual spending goes to entitlement programs and is therefore, not provided for in the United State's Constitution, there is the problem. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
You seem to have a lot of stuff mixed up there.

AFDC is traditional welfare, which seldom tops $165 a month. Last I studied this, you were paying about $36 a year toward it. The EITC (your EIC I think) is a reduction in taxes for the very poor and only a tiny fraction of them receive a deduction greater than their payments. Its an economic non-issue, not even a blip.

USDA food programs are welfare for farmers. The only reason the poor get the cheese is that we need something to do with it. The WIC program, however is well documented to save more in infant-toddler medical costs than it costs. Its a net gainer.

The tax rates are progressive, but the taxes paid, after deductions, aren't. Check your facts. The richest pay under 18% in after-deduction taxes, last time I studied it..

"Welfare" is just a repeated word, as is "means testing" These aren't actual programs.

Medicare is not means tested. It is a senior health care entitlement (which, BTW, people pay for throughout their working career. You'll find the deduction on your paycheck. Social Security is only paid to people who haven't met contribution minimums if they are disabled.

Medicaid is an expensive health care program for the very poor and a poor substitute for the universal health care systems that work so well in the rest of the industrialized world. I agree, it should be provided to everyone.

Where does you figure "over half of spending" come from. It's simply not true. But you have mixed up entitlement and non entitlement programs, welfare and programs not related to poverty. Is this your confusion?

Did you know this much about these programs before you listed them? You want to make a big dent? Go after corporate welfare, particularly in the defense sector. Skiving off the poor is a false economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
You ignored TCO of these programs, instead looking at individual burdens. Double and triple taxation of profits is discounted.

When the top 50% of the wage earners make up 95% of the total tax revenue, we have a problem. But of course you would like the top 10% of wage earners to pay 100% of the costs...but then revenue would fall as those who earned the top 10% would leave the country.

Entitlements are the problem. Why is it your typical money market account has a better return than Social Security? Of what need is Social Security? Should we not transfer SS to secure private investments (other than stock markets)?

Sure, go after corporate welfare. Just don't come crying to me when the corporation offshores. And for defense industries, that is strategic suicide. Had we not Kaiser, GM, Ford, Allison, Chrysler, Winchester, Remington, Willis, Higgins, Hormel, Stuedbaker, et al during WWII, we might not have been able to beat the Axis powers. Shit, guess who made the Sherman Tank? Chrysler! They are now owned by the corporation that built Panzers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
854 Posts
Keith_J said:
When the top 50% of the wage earners make up 95% of the total tax revenue, we have a problem. But of course you would like the top 10% of wage earners to pay 100% of the costs...but then revenue would fall as those who earned the top 10% would leave the country.
I have been saying this for awhile, this little fact is largely ignorred by the left.... there have been numerous threads on this topic and the left simply will not believe the facts....
 

·
Official E-Thug
Joined
·
1,689 Posts
DCMETRO1 said:
I have been saying this for awhile, this little fact is largely ignorred by the left.... there have been numerous threads on this topic and the left simply will not believe the facts....
I dont understand the issue?

Lets say... there were 1000 people in the country 800 of them made $1 per day and 200 of them made $1000 per day... who would pay more in taxes?

Isnt that the way it should be?

Im all about EVERYONE paying their fair share, but to say that the top classes shouldnt pay more IN REAL DOLLARS is crazy. I dont think someone in the top 1% should pay more on a percentage basis necessarily (to a degree but nothing that I dont think most would agree with) but in real dollars OF COURSE they pay more, they make more lol...

The REAL issue is our current tax system is EXTREMELY REGRESSIVE. By the time we figure in deductions and tax shelters, we have a system where the ultra rich pay a lower percentage of their income than the poor... or how about we keep it closer to home--- WAY less than the MIDDLE CLASS...

YET, they continue to use this false logic of how they pay in the most money. LOL well they also live in the biggest houses, pay the highest property tax, eat the most expensive foods, pay more to tip their waiters... I mean I can go on...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
It is impossible to understand the reality when the understanding of money dymanics is missing. For the example of 800 people making a dollar a day with the 200 people making $1000 a day, one would have to understand where the value of the money comes from.

It just so happens those 800 workers making $1 a day are employed by the people making $1000 a day.If the tax rate for the rich people were increased so each one had a net income of $1 a day (after all, that is fair, right?), the investor would be better off as a worker. Those 4 workers working for this investor would now be looking for work.

Value is the scarcity. We live in a finite world. We work to reduce scarcity. The harder we work, the more we oppose scarcity and the faster money changes hands. That is how economies are created. Money is dynamic but viewing it as a static resource leads one down the path seeing economic problems from wealth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
Keith_J said:
When the top 50% of the wage earners make up 95% of the total tax revenue, we have a problem. But of course you would like the top 10% of wage earners to pay 100% of the costs...but then revenue would fall as those who earned the top 10% would leave the country.
I see we're still ignoring that the top 50% of wage earners also make approximately 95% of the income (using your numbers).
 

·
Official E-Thug
Joined
·
1,689 Posts
Keith_J said:
If the tax rate for the rich people were increased so each one had a net income of $1 a day (after all, that is fair, right?),
WOW that couldnt be FARTHER from what I said LOL

I'll discontinue arguing/discussing with you now since obvsiously I cant say one single thing that would even make you *think* let alone change your mind....

*EDIT* and its funny... basically you just called me a communist... I am probably the most ardent capitalist and ULTRA conservative on this board.... But my ideals are governed by a reasonable sense of fair play and an understanding that government (taxes and everything else that goes with them) are a necessarily evil, and at some point it is adventageous to society as a whole to assist lower income people, my disdain for handouts and the like, im sure exceeds yours by a large margin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
And they're quite convinced they're right
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream, "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw
 
61 - 73 of 73 Posts
Top