Occupy Wall St.

[mgriff]

Americans are the most charitable in the world; at least we were before the recession.

Americans give record $295B to charity - USATODAY.com

 

[BeauBenken]

How much of that is Bill Gates? lol

 

[mgriff]

How much of that is Bill Gates? lol

Haha, good point, but there are a lot of organizations that do charitable work in America. It's part of our country's fabric. It used to be religious organizations but now as religion starts to fade there are other organizations which step in to take their places. They can't save every person, but neither can any government. I am by no means saying we shouldn't try, but destroying the financial viability of an entire nation while trying to do it is radical.

 

[pkt77242]

Okay, but last I checked $500,000 x .10 > $20,000 x .10

And why do your poor spend so much?

And there's been no talk of getting rid of welfare. Why do you act like the poor will get taxed and then just be left to die?

SMH.

If you make $20,000 a year trying to put a roof over your head, food, basic clothing, transportation (gas, bus, etc), and utilities pretty much takes up every penny you make so you spend it all.

The point isn't that the poor would pay more $ thent he rich, it is that they would pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. If you don't understand that point than we might as well stop this conversation because it isn't going anywhere.

And for the final part of your comment, here we go. Look at the drastic cuts that Republicans want in spending, if you don't think that some of the welfare is going to get reduced or completely wiped out you aren't paying attention. Look at Paul Ryan's idea for Medicare, it would drastically shift the cost of it to the elderly from the US government.

Finally the $2000 in taxes that the poor person would pay would drastically reduce their ability to meet their basic needs, while even if the person making 1 million dollars spend every penny he earned his $100,000 in taxes shouldn't even begin to dent his basic needs (or hell even most wants). That $2000 in taxes might be the difference between feeding his family, having a roof over his head or having transportation so he can go to work.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

SMH.

If you make $20,000 a year trying to put a roof over your head, food, basic clothing, transportation (gas, bus, etc), and utilities pretty much takes up every penny you make so you spend it all.

The point isn't that the poor would pay more $ thent he rich, it is that they would pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. If you don't understand that point than we might as well stop this conversation because it isn't going anywhere.

And for the final part of your comment, here we go. Look at the drastic cuts that Republicans want in spending, if you don't think that some of the welfare is going to get reduced or completely wiped out you aren't paying attention. Look at Paul Ryan's idea for Medicare, it would drastically shift the cost of it to the elderly from the US government.

Finally the $2000 in taxes that the poor person would pay would drastically reduce their ability to meet their basic needs, while even if the person making 1 million dollars spend every penny he earned his $100,000 in taxes shouldn't even begin to dent his basic needs (or hell even most wants). That $2000 in taxes might be the difference between feeding his family, having a roof over his head or having transportation so he can go to work.

The United States government is curretly vastly over spending. IT IS UNSUSTAINABLE. Cuts need to be made, and taxes need to be lowered.

People need to start being held accountable for their own actions, but no, it's always someone elses fault. If someone is only making $20,000 a year they probably made some poor choices earlier in their life and are paying for them now. It isn't the responsibility of the taxpayers to take care of that person.

Show me ONE good example of the government handling of taxpayers money.

 

[pkt77242]

When was it decided to make our tax system a welfare and quality of life equalizer? I thought taxation was a nations revenue source which should be equal for all. I beleive we have plenty of government agencies and charitable organizations to handle the of health and welfare of the poor.

And you don't think that all the talks of cutting spending isn't going to hurt those government organizations, that they aren't going to see less money with more people needing it? And the recession hasn't been straining the charitable organizations to their breaking points?


To the first part no the tax system isn't set up as a welfare system or quality of life equalizer, it is meant to provide a safety net for the poorest and neediest citizens, and to provide for things like roads, defense, citizen safety, etc.

I would make the arguement that the rich benefit the most from how our current system is set up so they pay more (and if you don't think that they benefit the most from the system, lets just agree to disagree).

 

[pkt77242]

The United States government is curretly vastly over spending. IT IS UNSUSTAINABLE. Cuts need to be made, and taxes need to be lowered.

People need to start being held accountable for their own actions, but no, it's always someone elses fault. If someone is only making $20,000 a year they probably made some poor choices earlier in their life and are paying for them now. It isn't the responsibility of the taxpayers to take care of that person.
Show me ONE good example of the government handling of taxpayers money.

I am not sure I can even take you serious. We already need to make drastic cuts in spending and now you want to lower taxes even more and make even more drastic cuts in spending?

I can show you many good examples of things that our government has provided. Interstate highway system, the internet (yep created by the government), stoping the Germany and Japan during WW II, space flight, air traffic controllers, etc. Ironically enough they provide healthcare significantly cheaper than the private sector (overhead for medicare and medicaid is about 3-8% while private insurance overhead (you know the money not going to pay for medical procedures and doctor visits) is somewhere between 12-20% in the US. That is a signifcant savings.

And for bolded part of your comments, I don't even know where to begin. No, it is not the responsibility of the other tax payers to provide them with the a $50,000 a year salary and a large house and fancy vacations, but it is our responsibilty to provide a social safety net, to help people have their basic needs met and help them get back on their feet so they can be productive members of society.

 

[tadman95]

The United States government is curretly vastly over spending. IT IS UNSUSTAINABLE. Cuts need to be made, and taxes need to be lowered.

People need to start being held accountable for their own actions, but no, it's always someone elses fault. If someone is only making $20,000 a year they probably made some poor choices earlier in their life and are paying for them now. It isn't the responsibility of the taxpayers to take care of that person.

Show me ONE good example of the government handling of taxpayers money.

Wish life was that simple. Free Trade Agreements have allowed companies to move millions of jobs overseas under the guise that americans would benefit from new markets opening for our products and americans could take on new, higher paying tech jobs. Well, almost twenty years later, how's that working out? There are a lot of good people caught in bad situations because there aren't enough jobs to replace the jobs that have been lost. Service jobs pay less that manufacturing jobs. How do you categorize so many people into "poor choices earlier in life"?

I agree it isn't the government's responsibilty to take care of that person but it is the government's responsibilty to provide a fair and free marketplace. People want Free Enterprise as long as it someone else being affected. I wonder how much money is spent giving companies special considerations in the tax code, or how much money is lost because competition is limited, ie... insurance industry? How does GE pay no taxes last year? If they can't survive without special consideration, should they exist?

The constitution was written for the people of the United States, not the corporations of the United States (Even though the Supreme Court seems to disagree smh).

I think your view is sustainable only if the playing field is level and it's not. We also as a society have to try and protect all of our citizens, not just those who have influence in Washington.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Some of the most dishearteningly ignorant and mean-spirited opinions I've ever heard being shared here. Very disappointing.

 

[Mr. Larson]

Can't help but wonder why this thread wasn't titled "Poor People: It's their own f*cking fault."

 

[Mr. Larson]

SMH.

If you make $20,000 a year trying to put a roof over your head, food, basic clothing, transportation (gas, bus, etc), and utilities pretty much takes up every penny you make so you spend it all.

The point isn't that the poor would pay more $ thent he rich, it is that they would pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. If you don't understand that point than we might as well stop this conversation because it isn't going anywhere.

And for the final part of your comment, here we go. Look at the drastic cuts that Republicans want in spending, if you don't think that some of the welfare is going to get reduced or completely wiped out you aren't paying attention. Look at Paul Ryan's idea for Medicare, it would drastically shift the cost of it to the elderly from the US government.

Finally the $2000 in taxes that the poor person would pay would drastically reduce their ability to meet their basic needs, while even if the person making 1 million dollars spend every penny he earned his $100,000 in taxes shouldn't even begin to dent his basic needs (or hell even most wants). That $2000 in taxes might be the difference between feeding his family, having a roof over his head or having transportation so he can go to work.

Excellent post. I had one put together on disposable income but it looks like you covered it.

 

[BeauBenken]

SMH.

If you make $20,000 a year trying to put a roof over your head, food, basic clothing, transportation (gas, bus, etc), and utilities pretty much takes up every penny you make so you spend it all.

The point isn't that the poor would pay more $ thent he rich, it is that they would pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. If you don't understand that point than we might as well stop this conversation because it isn't going anywhere.

And for the final part of your comment, here we go. Look at the drastic cuts that Republicans want in spending, if you don't think that some of the welfare is going to get reduced or completely wiped out you aren't paying attention. Look at Paul Ryan's idea for Medicare, it would drastically shift the cost of it to the elderly from the US government.

Finally the $2000 in taxes that the poor person would pay would drastically reduce their ability to meet their basic needs, while even if the person making 1 million dollars spend every penny he earned his $100,000 in taxes shouldn't even begin to dent his basic needs (or hell even most wants). That $2000 in taxes might be the difference between feeding his family, having a roof over his head or having transportation so he can go to work.

Damn right I'm not. lol

I'm a freshman in college who has no time for the crap that's going on. If I took the time to become a political activist, I'd be falling behind in school and my future career.

I honestly do stand by a lot of the things I've said though. I personally don't know much about inner-city NY or downtown Atlanta or whatever, but to me, it seems that the opportunity to be successful is within the reach of everybody.

Do I think there should be changes to help the less fortunate? Yes, I like to think I'm here to help (not be a crutch to) my fellow man. I'm not sure I like the idea of so much of it being through my taxes though.

 

[phgreek]

a flat tax would have to be approx. 10% income tax, 10% national sales tax and 10% capital gains with zero exceptions....for ANYONE.

...true...and think of the huge portions of government we could eliminate...for instance The IRS could be cut to a fraction of what it is today.

 

[BeauBenken]

Some of the most dishearteningly ignorant and mean-spirited opinions I've ever heard being shared here. Very disappointing.

What are you referring to?

 

[pkt77242]

Damn right I'm not. lol

I'm a freshman in college who has no time for the crap that's going on. If I took the time to become a political activist, I'd be falling behind in school and my future career.

I honestly do stand by a lot of the things I've said though. I personally don't know much about inner-city NY or downtown Atlanta or whatever, but to me, it seems that the opportunity to be successful is within the reach of everybody.

Do I think there should be changes to help the less fortunate? Yes, I like to think I'm here to help (not be a crutch to) my fellow man. I'm not sure I like the idea of so much of it being through my taxes though.

Not to be a **** but if you are in college I find it difficult to believe that you make enough money that is through your taxes.

 

[tadman95]

...true...and think of the huge portions of government we could eliminate...for instance The IRS could be cut to a fraction of what it is today.

Think of all the accountants, tax attorneys, book keepers we could eliminate! Oh wait......

Ain't gonna happen!

 

[greyhammer90]

soooo... how about those new background pictures? Those are pretty neat right guys?

 

[BeauBenken]

Not to be a **** but if you are in college I find it difficult to believe that you make enough money that is through your taxes.

lol I meant it in a future sense. It's only going to get worse from here though.

 

[phgreek]

Damn right I'm not. lol

I'm a freshman in college who has no time for the crap that's going on. If I took the time to become a political activist, I'd be falling behind in school and my future career.

I honestly do stand by a lot of the things I've said though. I personally don't know much about inner-city NY or downtown Atlanta or whatever, but to me, it seems that the opportunity to be successful is within the reach of everybody.

Do I think there should be changes to help the less fortunate? Yes, I like to think I'm here to help (not be a crutch to) my fellow man. I'm not sure I like the idea of so much it being through my taxes though.

You my boy have wisdom beyond your years...

We all have a duty to individully seek out those in need...but that sentiment/duty has somehow been usurped by government via the tax code. Your sense of that issue is DEAD ON!

The government burns more money in inefficiency than it ever delivers in services. The government is not, and cannot be a charitable organization, and still meet its primary purpose...strengthening the republic.

I might even look at some of the arguments for entitlements seriously if the government were doing a good job with its primary functions...security (borders), commerce(foreign trade), and infrastructure (Roads and bridges)...

I'm pretty sure Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin...they wouldn't give our government very high marks, and the big hit would be....entitlements. In fact some of those mentioned spoke about being careful not to do exactly what we've done with entitlements.

Sure, you'll hear how these are just old guys who don't get it...How we've outgrown their vision...blah, blah, blah. I'd say if you are discerning regarding from whom you take your advice...I'd trust the guys who literally put their lives on the line for the birth of this nation...as well, they are really the last folks who had a vision unencumbered by politics and money (ie self interest).

 

[phgreek]

Think of all the accountants, tax attorneys, book keepers we could eliminate! Oh wait......

Ain't gonna happen!

...probably not...but its hard to argue it from a purely logical perspective...who knows though...we've had some nasty legislation railroaded by the Dems...if the Republicans take over...maybe they all decide to commit political suicide too...only for fiscal restraint...and a flat tax...A guy can hope.

 

[BobD]

I say again, tax is about revenue, not about welfare. Tax should be 100% equal for each and every American with NO exceptions. Exceptions, exemptions and credits have made a joke of our current system. Corporations and the wealthy are basically getting away with highway robbery while the poor are receiving payments higher than the amount they've paid from a department that should be collecting revenue.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I say again, tax is about revenue, not about welfare. Tax should be 100% equal for each and every American with NO exceptions. Exceptions, exemptions and credits have made a joke of our current system. Corporations and the wealthy are basically getting away with highway robbery while the poor are receiving payments higher than the amount they've paid from a department that should be collecting revenue.

I strongly disagree. No serious tax scholar advocates a flat tax. The flat tax is an idea championed solely by politically motivated wingnuts. It sounds good, especially to angry white people, but it wouldn't work and it is not more "fair" than a progressive tax. The federal income tax has always been progressive, and is less progressive now than it has ever been.

I do agree with you that we should try to close some of the loopholes in tax code. I also agree that social policy should not be implemented through the tax code. But in terms of a flat tax, not only would it not work but I find it morally objectionable. Those most able to pay should pay more. I fail to see how it is fair that a person that makes the $30K a year is asked by his government to make the same sacrifice as someone who makes $30M a year. I question the sanity of anyone who considers that fair.

 

[pkt77242]

I strongly disagree. No serious tax scholar advocates a flat tax. The flat tax is an idea championed solely by politically motivated wingnuts. It sounds good, especially to angry white people, but it wouldn't work and it is not more "fair" than a progressive tax. The federal income tax has always been progressive, and is less progressive now than it has ever been.

I do agree with you that we should try to close some of the loopholes in tax code. I also agree that social policy should not be implemented through the tax code. But in terms of a flat tax, not only would it not work but I find it morally objectionable. Those most able to pay should pay more. I fail to see how it is fair that a person that makes the $30K a year is asked by his government to make the same sacrifice as someone who makes $30M a year. I question the sanity of anyone who considers that fair.

Well said. I tried to rep you but I have to spread it around.

 

[phgreek]

I strongly disagree. No serious tax scholar advocates a flat tax. The flat tax is an idea championed solely by politically motivated wingnuts. It sounds good, especially to angry white people, but it wouldn't work and it is not more "fair" than a progressive tax. The federal income tax has always been progressive, and is less progressive now than it has ever been.

I do agree with you that we should try to close some of the loopholes in tax code. I also agree that social policy should not be implemented through the tax code. But in terms of a flat tax, not only would it not work but I find it morally objectionable. Those most able to pay should pay more. I fail to see how it is fair that a person that makes the $30K a year is asked by his government to make the same sacrifice as someone who makes $30M a year. I question the sanity of anyone who considers that fair.

I wear "wingnut" like a badge...among the others I have (lemme see teabagger, nativist...it goes on and on). Fairness is really perspective. I simply do not believe in fairness in outcomes...but rather fairness in opportunity. All folks should be afforded an opportunity to chase their dreams...in doing so, I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that successful people are more of a drain on the Federal government...which to me is the only justification for a graduated tax.

I want to prove I am better, faster, stronger, smarter...and I don't want help...I want to know what I've done was by my own ingenuity, guile, perserverence...whatever. However, as I'm sprinting across the finish line, I don't want you to tie an anvil to me simply because others are lagging behind. In my view, by doing so you rob me, but also thos lagging of the opportunity to see where the bar is, and ask why they aren't meeting it, and to execute a plan to improve. If you make it so everbody is just good enough...you are robbing them of their most important asset, their spirit and desire for self-determination.

A progressive tax code being fair is like saying we shoulda tied a brick to Rocket so his average yards per return came down in line with the other kids...when you play percentages in a discussion of fairness...you lose me. The rules are either the same...or they are not..PERIOD. My perspective is that fairness is lining everbody up at the start, not at the end. Yours is clearly different...I don't have a name for you, except buddy.

 

[Mr. Larson]

A progressive tax code being fair is like saying we shoulda tied a brick to Rocket so his average yards per return came down in line with the other kids...when you play percentages in a discussion of fairness...you lose me. The rules are either the same...or they are not..PERIOD. My perspective is that fairness is lining everbody up at the start, not at the end. Yours is clearly different...I don't have a name for you, except buddy.

Leave Rocket Ismail out of this.

 

[phgreek]

Leave Rocket Ismail out of this.

...sorry, its what came to mind...

Disclaimer:

By use in the above analogy Rocket is neither aware or endorses the use of his name associated with this subject matter

 

[BeauBenken]

Now, I know I'll get crap because the unemployment rate is rather high, but what if we lowered taxes on business and jacked up the minimum wage?

You'll be getting more money directly into the workers' hands, right? Rather than lose so much money that goes into the system and gets considerably smaller before it comes out as welfare.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I wear "wingnut" like a badge...among the others I have (lemme see teabagger, nativist...it goes on and on). Fairness is really perspective. I simply do not believe in fairness in outcomes...but rather fairness in opportunity. All folks should be afforded an opportunity to chase their dreams...in doing so, I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that successful people are more of a drain on the Federal government...which to me is the only justification for a graduated tax.

I want to prove I am better, faster, stronger, smarter...and I don't want help...I want to know what I've done was by my own ingenuity, guile, perserverence...whatever. However, as I'm sprinting across the finish line, I don't want you to tie an anvil to me simply because others are lagging behind. In my view, by doing so you rob me, but also thos lagging of the opportunity to see where the bar is, and ask why they aren't meeting it, and to execute a plan to improve. If you make it so everbody is just good enough...you are robbing them of their most important asset, their spirit and desire for self-determination.

A progressive tax code being fair is like saying we shoulda tied a brick to Rocket so his average yards per return came down in line with the other kids...when you play percentages in a discussion of fairness...you lose me. The rules are either the same...or they are not..PERIOD. My perspective is that fairness is lining everbody up at the start, not at the end. Yours is clearly different...I don't have a name for you, except buddy.

Life isn't a game. The point is not to name a winner and a loser at the end. I hate the ideas of handicapping and giving everyone a trophy in sports. But in sports, if you don't have the ability to compete you don't have to play. Not so with life. I'm pretty sure that a poor person with a terminal illness would gladly trade their "spirit and desire for self-determination" for an affordable treatment of their condition. Your perspective is philosophically defensible, but it in practice it fails to account for some of life's sadder realities.

As far as being a drain on the system being the only justification for tax, that is not a justification for tax under and theory I've ever heard. If you don't agree with an ability-to-pay justification, there is also the fact that wealthy people derive far more benefits from government expenditures than the poor. The wealthy benefit disproportionately from the justice system and the military, which protect business interests of the wealthy at home and abroad, respectively.

Now, with that, I'd like to remove myself from this discussion and get back to football. Clearly, we have a philosophical disagreement in this thread, an that is OK. But neither side is going to convince the other to change their mind, and everyone has gotten a chance to explain and argue on behalf of their position.

 

[NankerPhelge]

I think the best idea is not a flat tax, nor a progressive tax. The tax rate should be regressive to give the poor more incentive to get off their ***** and do something productive.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I think the best idea is not a flat tax, nor a progressive tax. The tax rate should be regressive to give the poor more incentive to get off their ***** and do something productive.

Yes. All poor people are just lazy. Conversely, all rich people work very hard, are productive job creators, and have earned every dollar they have.

You've nailed it.