Ron 10 #76 August 3, 2004 QuoteYou're assuming that the wealthiest aren't taking deductions. Make it a flat percentage tax with no deductions. Then it's fair. Also reduce public support so those that are living on the system have to do WORK to get it...Pay them to pick up trash on the highway as opposed to just collecting a check every mth. Make them cut grass, paint buildings, mop floors..ect. Quit handing out money for nothing. QuoteLess weathy people get to do this less because they have less money to begin with, so, therefor can take fewer deductions percentagewise. and I firmly believe that most of those "poor" could do better if they were not LAZY."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #77 August 3, 2004 QuoteAlso reduce public support so those that are living on the system have to do WORK to get it...Pay them to pick up trash on the highway as opposed to just collecting a check every mth. Make them cut grass, paint buildings, mop floors..ect. Quit handing out money for nothing. I agree that's a better way of doing things in Utopia. But there are a few problems that need to be overcome. You have people who are physically or mentally unable to do that work. You have people with children that would have to pay more for day care then they would make working. You have people already working full time who aren't making enough for basic necessities. Now assuming that you have compassion enough to help those people out, but just want to weed out the people who COULD work for the money, you have to create one hell of a beuracracy to determine who fits into which category. Bringing welfare into a tax debate is kind of a red herring anyway. Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Food Stamps account for approximately 1% each of the federal budget. People who can work but don't are a hot topic item that makes welfare unpalatable to some people. But those people are a tiny minority of those receiving benefits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #78 August 3, 2004 QuoteYou have people who are physically or mentally unable to do that work Then they would not have to do it... QuoteYou have people with children that would have to pay more for day care then they would make working. Then you help pay for childcare and make them go get a job. QuoteYou have people already working full time who aren't making enough for basic necessities. Then you help them with food stamps and public houseing...But the had better be working. QuoteNow assuming that you have compassion enough to help those people out, but just want to weed out the people who COULD work for the money, you have to create one hell of a beuracracy to determine who fits into which category. I would rather pay for that than pay lazy people to sit on their asses. QuotePeople who can work but don't are a hot topic item that makes welfare unpalatable to some people. But those people are a tiny minority of those receiving benefits. I don't agree...I have had students in school with me on welfare..the tell me all the good it does them and that they are not going to get a job cause its better for them not to work. Remove the "small" (as you say) percent that could work...And I don't mind helping those that can't."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #79 August 3, 2004 >I'm not so cold as to take the last nickel form a broke guy. I also >know you can't take what they don't have. Agreed there. We agree on the basic idea; it's just a question of implementation of those ideas. The basics are: 1. You shouldn't tax someone more than they make. 2. You should not "try to take the last nickel" from someone who doesn't make much. 3. Rich people are able to pay more taxes than poor people. From there, you come up with the tax rate. A flat tax rate with a "loophole" for poor people is a progressive tax, just one with a step instead of a linear (or exponential) function. To me the exact formula isn't that important. I like mine, which is basically: tax rate = (1 - X^-(Y/income))*Z Z sets the max tax rate, X sets how quickly you reach the max rate, and Y sets the "deflection", or the "progressiveness" of the tax rate. Want a less progressive tax? Decrease Y. Want a tax that gives the middle class more of a break? Decrease X. Use Z to make sure you get enough money to run the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #80 August 3, 2004 Your anecdotal experience aside, it's just not true. From HIPAA: New welfare recipients average yearly was 77.1 percent of the federal poverty level (with about 70 percent of participants earning less than 100 percent of the poverty level), and 18.6 percent were on public assistance. The average monthly AFDC payment was $272, and the average food stamp subsidy was $169 per month. That's a grand total of little over five grand a year, about half what you make at a full time minimum wage job. Whoever these people were that told you that were just plain stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #81 August 4, 2004 QuoteAccourding to some religions its their duty to produce as many childern as they can. Fundalmental Mormanism for example. In those cases you are talking about religion vs government, which do you choose? Hell what about the official doctrine of the Catholic church? you don't need to go hunting for fringe religions to find this tenant. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #82 August 4, 2004 Quote>Of the two the child care credit is more important. Why reward people for having lots of kids? I think I'd rather reward people who realize they can't pay for kids - and thus don't have them. Cap it at two kids then. I may be liberal but I am not a bleeding heart liberal. Quote >Home ownership is part of the American dream and it is hard enouh to get >that first one. Ah, but see, that's a trap. If that's the case, surely tax credits for solar power systems should be on the list too; they reduce our dependence on foreign oil (very important) keep the environment cleaner (less money spent on the EPA) and help people make ends meet (no gas/electric bills.) And what about credits for poor old people who can't afford medicine? That's only fair. And parents of Down syndrome children? Surely they need a break! Once you decide "there are just a few things that we need to help people out with" the floodgates open. Soon you're back to tax breaks for SUV's, which is where we are now. Everyone wants one, and will go on and on about how important it is (and spend endlessly on PAC's to get it.) That's the danger of using taxes as social equalizers, and one reason that a flat tax (or even a progressive tax without loopholes) is attractive. You are right that there are a lot of things that could be on the list. My list has two things on it. Could you convince me to add more, maybe but it would still be simpler than what we have. Real loophole plugging, as you elude to above, is far more important than any of the rest of this. I did some digging yesterday and it looks to me like the total income of US households is only about twice the federal budget so money is coming from other sources than our pockets. Or at least directly from our pockets. I realize that individuals pay all taxes either directly to the govt. or indirectly in prices we pay for goods and services. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #83 August 4, 2004 Quote fair Pronunciation Key (fâr) adj. fair·er, fair·est ... 8 Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds. 9 Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic equitable eq·ui·ta·ble Pronunciation Key (kw-t-bl) adj. Marked by or having equity; just and impartial. See Synonyms at fair. [French équitable, from Old French, from equite, equity. See equity.]equi·ta·ble·ness n. equi·ta·bly adv. Main Entry: eq·ui·ta·ble Pronunciation: 'e-kwi-t&-b&l Function: adjective 1 : having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally 2 : existing or valid in equity or as a matter of equity as distinguished from law Not a whole lot of difference. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #84 August 4, 2004 It would be ill-advised to wear undershorts made of trout in a yard filled with 100 hungry stray cats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #85 August 4, 2004 I don't wear undershorts. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #86 August 4, 2004 QuoteYour anecdotal experience aside, it's just not true. From HIPAA: New welfare recipients average yearly was 77.1 percent of the federal poverty level (with about 70 percent of participants earning less than 100 percent of the poverty level), and 18.6 percent were on public assistance. The average monthly AFDC payment was $272, and the average food stamp subsidy was $169 per month. That's a grand total of little over five grand a year, about half what you make at a full time minimum wage job. Whoever these people were that told you that were just plain stupid. They were given money to live off of. They were given money for child care. They were getting food stamps. They got free bus passes. They were living free in Government housing. School was being paid for. They (Two of them) told me that they could not afford all of that if the took a job they were offered. They would lose the money given to them. They would lose the free child care. They would lose the food stamps. They would of had to pay for the bus passes. They would of had to pay to live in the government housing, or move out of the housing. They would of had to pay for school. So they and I were NOT wrong. Its just the were using more than ONE source to compare."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #87 August 4, 2004 QuoteThey (Two of them) told me that they could not afford all of that if the took a job they were offered. They would lose the money given to them. They would lose the free child care. They would lose the food stamps. They would of had to pay for the bus passes. They would of had to pay to live in the government housing, or move out of the housing. They would of had to pay for school. So what your saying is, if they were not receiving welfare they would have been homeless, hungry, abandoning their kids all day to work, with no transportation, and no opportunity to get an education. Seems to me like they are living in abject poverty. Ahh, but screw them. Not my problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #88 August 4, 2004 QuoteSo what your saying is, if they were not receiving welfare they would have been homeless, hungry, abandoning their kids all day to work, with no transportation, and no opportunity to get an education. Seems to me like they are living in abject poverty. Ahh, but screw them. Not my problem. No what I am saying is that they decided to play the system so they can live off of it instead of getting a job and helping themselves."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #89 August 4, 2004 QuoteNo what I am saying is that they decided to play the system so they can live off of it instead of getting a job and helping themselves. QuoteThey (Two of them) told me that they could not afford all of that if the took a job they were offered. They would lose the money given to them. They would lose the free child care. They would lose the food stamps. They would of had to pay for the bus passes. They would of had to pay to live in the government housing, or move out of the housing. They would of had to pay for school. So they and I were NOT wrong. You're right, I agree with you, Ron. I'm as pissed as you that they decided to "play the system" so that they could survive in poverty. Unbelievably selfish of them, don't they care about the rest of us that can't get that plasma screen for the kitchen due the 2% of our taxes that they (along with millions of others like them) are costing us? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #90 August 4, 2004 When that 2% for their freebies could have been invested in your daughter or son's education account (of course you make too much for your kids to get grants and scholarships) then come back and talk about it some more ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #91 August 4, 2004 QuoteYou're right, I agree with you, Ron. I'm as pissed as you that they decided to "play the system" so that they could survive in poverty. Unbelievably selfish of them, don't they care about the rest of us that can't get that plasma screen for the kitchen due the 2% of our taxes that they (along with millions of others like them) are costing us? Im for HELPING those that HELP themselves... In this case they wanted to live off our dimes and not do shit for it. The SYSTEM made it so they could play it and live and do as they please. The system is fucked up, and they are wrong for taking advantage of it. For the record I don't even have cable or satelitte. I don't watch but news on my local stations. So, I don't need a plasma TV. I think these two serve as a good example.. Are you telling me that ALL people on welfare can't get a job? They CHOOSE to live in poverty...They could get a job and WORK to get out..but the choose not to."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #92 August 4, 2004 QuoteIm for HELPING those that HELP themselves... In this case they wanted to live off our dimes and not do shit for it. You said yourself that if they didn't "play the system" that they would be homeless, etc. if they worked instead of getting welfare. And you're trying to claim they made a selfish decision. It's ludicrous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #93 August 4, 2004 QuoteYou said yourself that if they didn't "play the system" that they would be homeless, etc. if they worked instead of getting welfare. And you're trying to claim they made a selfish decision. It's ludicrous. Thats what THEY said...I know you liberals well enough that even the laziest will not go hungry"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #94 August 4, 2004 QuoteYou said yourself that if they didn't "play the system" that they would be homeless, etc. if they worked instead of getting welfare. And you're trying to claim they made a selfish decision. It's ludicrous. No, he said the system paid them more and it came with perks. And that is the reason they chose larceny over work. If they chose to work, eventually they'd make more. They didn't even try. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
