Lucky... 0 #26 October 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I wonder how many of the stimulus supporters are flying down to these hard hit areas to offer low interest rate loans to help some of these individuals out? If it is such a good idea when it is funded with our money, then you shouldn't have any problem funding such a initiative directly. Foreclosures are bad for everyone, right? Here is a chance to give back directly. You can even donate any profit you turn to the local YMCA. No need to be so sensitive about being outed. Your free to your opinion. (Gross tax Liability) - (federal payments received) = Net Tax Liability Net Tax Liability > 0 Dollars , a discount or rebate on a persons tax expense. Net Tax Liability I can be for or against the stimulus payments. You can be for or against them. Does that change the equation somehow? You either pay in, or you cash out. So what you complaining about is Earned Income Credit and the likes. You're equating the stimulus to EIC if the receiver is on EIC or hasn't paid in. The reason people get EIC is due to them having kids and very, very low income. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #27 October 13, 2009 Quote Oh, so you agree that ideals that worry of the underclass getting assistance, stimulus, etc are fascist? Disagreeing with one distinct method of assistance is the same as supporting strict class divisions? The extreme leap you are making doesn't really support your argument as rationale. Does supporting some methods of government assistance make you a socialist, or a communist?"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #28 October 13, 2009 Quote So what you complaining about is Earned Income Credit and the likes. You're equating the stimulus to EIC if the receiver is on EIC or hasn't paid in. The reason people get EIC is due to them having kids and very, very low income. I said nothing about the merit or worth, and my approval or dissaproval of EIC, or other refundable tax credits. Let me try again. At the end of the year you either: A. Contributed more tax revenue to the government, than the payments you received from the goverment. or B. Received more from the government than the tax revenue that you contributed. Once you figure out the simple math, let me know."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #29 October 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I wonder how many of the stimulus supporters are flying down to these hard hit areas to offer low interest rate loans to help some of these individuals out? If it is such a good idea when it is funded with our money, then you shouldn't have any problem funding such a initiative directly. Foreclosures are bad for everyone, right? Here is a chance to give back directly. You can even donate any profit you turn to the local YMCA. No need to be so sensitive about being outed. Your free to your opinion. (Gross tax Liability) - (federal payments received) = Net Tax Liability Net Tax Liability > 0 Dollars , a discount or rebate on a persons tax expense. Net Tax Liability I can be for or against the stimulus payments. You can be for or against them. Does that change the equation somehow? You either pay in, or you cash out. Under Bush's 2008 Stimulus, I paid in and you cashed out. Difference is, I didn't whine about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #30 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuote So what you complaining about is Earned Income Credit and the likes. You're equating the stimulus to EIC if the receiver is on EIC or hasn't paid in. The reason people get EIC is due to them having kids and very, very low income. I said nothing about the merit or worth, and my approval or dissaproval of EIC, or other refundable tax credits. Let me try again. At the end of the year you either: A. Contributed more tax revenue to the government, than the payments you received from the goverment. or B. Received more from the government than the tax revenue that you contributed. Once you figure out the simple math, let me know. To quote a wise man: "It's not your money; it's the government's. The government belongs to the people equally, per capita, not proportionately to the amount of taxes paid in." You took stimulus money in 2008. You have no basis for criticizing others for doing it in 2009.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #31 October 13, 2009 Wrong. We both paid in. I would argue since both of us paid tax in, and the cash is going into a general pool with no earmarks, it makes most sense to look at each tax payer as a individual equation. My tax liability far exceeded the ObushMa money that I received in 2008, and that I expect to receive if any in 2009. Put what ever "spin" on it that you want. If you a receiving money from the IRS that is less than your overall liability is that benifit is effectively a discount. Again, any opinion of worth, reasonableness, fairness, doesn't change the equation."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #32 October 13, 2009 QuoteHowever, once the government gets the money it's theirs, not yours, so you have no more expectation of getting a "stimulus" than does a homeless indigent. idiotic - by your logic, the gov could decide to take 100% of the income from you and turn around and give you a $20 bill and, of course, you'd be grateful to get the $20 since, once they took your 100%, that money belongs to the government In fact, they could just focus on college professors for the 100% tax rate and tax everyone else 5% and you'd still accept it as right and decent and take that $20 and smile happily. (And, yes, I know this is the perfect scenario (100% income tax with poverty handouts) for many here on this board) ... 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
DougH 270 #33 October 13, 2009 Quote You took stimulus money in 2008. You have no basis for criticizing others for doing it in 2009. I am not criticizing others for taking stimulus payments in 2009. I am not criticizing Obama and Congress for giving individuals discounts on their taxes paid in. I am reserving any opinion on government hand outs to individuals who do not contribute to the system and only pull resources out until the following is known: A. What was the overall expense of the hand outs. This would include incurred interest. B. What was the economic benefit of the hand outs. Did it actually help people avoid foreclosures, spur jobs, spur investment in these areas. Did it net savings in other government assistance programs. Did it avoid an increase in police spending that would have resulted if this hadn't been done. Are we to expect any savings to be realized because the hand outs encouraged individuals to act in a more economic manner in the future. Please report back with this data professor."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #34 October 13, 2009 Quote The reason people get EIC is due to them having kids and very, very low income. Paying poor people to have kids is just about the most idiotic idea ever. Only in government.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #35 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuote The reason people get EIC is due to them having kids and very, very low income. Paying poor people to have kids is just about the most idiotic idea ever. Only in government.... You are going to get labeled a Fascist or a Nazi if your not careful. Questioning the logic of government programs, and how they motivate behavior, and incur a net cost or a net benefit overall, is getting awfully close to death camps and mass graves."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #36 October 13, 2009 QuoteIn fact, they could just focus on college professors for the 100% tax rate and tax everyone else 5% and you'd still accept it as right and decent and take that $20 and smile happily. Naaaa I say we tax his plane fuel at $2 a gallon to pay for the Next Gen ATC that our wonderful GOVT has been primising us for years. john Loves taxes just as long as he doesn have to pay for it. Also up the registration for his plane also. Theres another tax you should be all for. It's for the good of the people to pay high taxes remember John. Don't whine about it. Just do it and take it like a man.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #37 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteIn fact, they could just focus on college professors for the 100% tax rate and tax everyone else 5% and you'd still accept it as right and decent and take that $20 and smile happily. Naaaa I say we tax his plane fuel at $2 a gallon to pay for the Next Gen ATC that our wonderful GOVT has been primising us for years. john Loves taxes just as long as he doesn have to pay for it. Also up the registration for his plane also. Theres another tax you should be all for. It's for the good of the people to pay high taxes remember John. Don't whine about it. Just do it and take it like a man. Here's an interesting article on that.... http://reason.org/files/c1a82c766aec1c5b8ee55404ca00fb30.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 October 13, 2009 QuoteDisagreeing with one distinct method of assistance is the same as supporting strict class divisions? But don't you disagree with most or all social welfare? Tell me, which method(s) of assisatnce do you agree with? QuoteThe extreme leap you are making doesn't really support your argument as rationale. And yet you don't post any of the 3 I posted to pick them apart; just dismiss them as irrational. QuoteDoes supporting some methods of government assistance make you a socialist, or a communist? I would say a socialist; communism is for peopel who are far virtually complete governmental control for the benefit of the gov. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #39 October 13, 2009 QuotePaying poor people to have kids is just about the most idiotic idea ever. Only in government.... I qualified for EIC one year when I was in schoool and only working part time. No kids. The original premise you are complaining about is false. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #40 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuote So what you complaining about is Earned Income Credit and the likes. You're equating the stimulus to EIC if the receiver is on EIC or hasn't paid in. The reason people get EIC is due to them having kids and very, very low income. I said nothing about the merit or worth, and my approval or dissaproval of EIC, or other refundable tax credits. Let me try again. At the end of the year you either: A. Contributed more tax revenue to the government, than the payments you received from the goverment. or B. Received more from the government than the tax revenue that you contributed. Once you figure out the simple math, let me know. EIC is given to people who generally have kids and really low income. They take more than they put into the system, the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT you are making with stimulus checks, you justify cashing yours by saying that you had put more in than you git back, so you deserved yours, unlike people who receive more than they pay in. ---->EIC recipient earns let's say 8k. Pays in $300 in withholding. ----->They write off their kids and themselves and get back all $300 plus $4k in EIC ----->They pay zero and get $4k back that they didn't put in. LMK when you have done the math. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #41 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuotePaying poor people to have kids is just about the most idiotic idea ever. Only in government.... I qualified for EIC one year when I was in school and only working part time. No kids. The original premise you are complaining about is false. Fair enough. When I have some more time I'll look at what does and doesn't qualify so I have a better idea of how it works. I've made the assumption that kids play a large factor in being eligible for EIC, and that may be false. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #42 October 13, 2009 QuoteI would argue since both of us paid tax in, and the cash is going into a general pool with no earmarks, it makes most sense to look at each tax payer as a individual equation. So you're saying you're amore worthy citizen if you earn more and pay more in taxes? QuoteIf you a receiving money from the IRS that is less than your overall liability is that benifit is effectively a discount. Right, EIC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #43 October 13, 2009 Quote EIC is given to people who generally have kids and really low income. They take more than they put into the system, the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT you are making with stimulus checks, you justify cashing yours by saying that you had put more in than you git back, so you deserved yours, unlike people who receive more than they pay in. ---->EIC recipient earns let's say 8k. Pays in $300 in withholding. ----->They write off their kids and themselves and get back all $300 plus $4k in EIC ----->They pay zero and get $4k back that they didn't put in. LMK when you have done the math. If you can't see the difference between getting something back and getting something you never paid in the first place I'm not sure there's anything anyone can do to help you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #44 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuote The reason people get EIC is due to them having kids and very, very low income. Paying poor people to have kids is just about the most idiotic idea ever. Only in government.... I'm not saying I advocate it either, I was simply using it as an extension of Doug's logic. However, somethin has to be done to keep poor people and their kids out of poverty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #45 October 13, 2009 Quote So you're saying you're a more worthy citizen if you earn more and pay more in taxes? While I think taxes are a separate issue, I'd say generally, yes. Earning more usually means you're more productive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #46 October 13, 2009 Quote I'm not saying I advocate it either, I was simply using it as an extension of Doug's logic. However, somethin has to be done to keep poor people and their kids out of poverty. Except where is the line drawn between 'Assistance' and 'Enabling' ? Given that there are generations of welfare-dependent families, is it possible that these programs are enabling the very problems they seek to eliminate? If you reward something, do you usually get more of it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #47 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuotePaying poor people to have kids is just about the most idiotic idea ever. Only in government.... I qualified for EIC one year when I was in schoool and only working part time. No kids. The original premise you are complaining about is false. Yea, that's why I said 'generally' have kids. Altho a single person doesn't get much, they can be eligible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #48 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotePaying poor people to have kids is just about the most idiotic idea ever. Only in government.... I qualified for EIC one year when I was in school and only working part time. No kids. The original premise you are complaining about is false. Fair enough. When I have some more time I'll look at what does and doesn't qualify so I have a better idea of how it works. I've made the assumption that kids play a large factor in being eligible for EIC, and that may be false. Largely true, but not absolute. Either way, I brought it in to establish to Doug that with his logic, stimulus checks and EIC can be a matter where you get back more than you pay in, so with the element he proposed tehre isn't necessarily a diff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #49 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuote EIC is given to people who generally have kids and really low income. They take more than they put into the system, the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT you are making with stimulus checks, you justify cashing yours by saying that you had put more in than you git back, so you deserved yours, unlike people who receive more than they pay in. ---->EIC recipient earns let's say 8k. Pays in $300 in withholding. ----->They write off their kids and themselves and get back all $300 plus $4k in EIC ----->They pay zero and get $4k back that they didn't put in. LMK when you have done the math. If you can't see the difference between getting something back and getting something you never paid in the first place I'm not sure there's anything anyone can do to help you. We've all had the math done, what I'm saying is that with stimulus checks and with EIC they can both be matters of getting back more than you pay in. LMK when you grasp that concept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #50 October 13, 2009 Quote Quote So you're saying you're a more worthy citizen if you earn more and pay more in taxes? While I think taxes are a separate issue, I'd say generally, yes. Earning more usually means you're more productive. Oh that's laughable. CEO's are teh most productive people in teh US. Or should we look at athletes and actors, etc.... Feel free to withdraw that assertion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
