quote:Originally posted by Destineer: When would you classify someone as being poor. Either by amenities, salary, etc?
Depends a lot on where you live. I would say that in many regions of the country, a single person is poor enough to need assistance if they make less than about $15-20K. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I just want to be clear here. You are fine with people not getting asistance if they make more than $20k a year? You do realize that is $9.62?
And I do have a huge problem with people that have nothing wrong with them that simply refuse to work to pay the bills. Take me up on my challenge if you disagree with me. Pay all of my bills while I sit at home. I will even periodically send you a thank you card (with money you provide to me of course) showing my gratitude for your generosity.
If someone cannot care for themselves, I have no problem helping them. We should take care of our sick and elderly. I want the government to use more discretion in who they give the money to. I want welfare recipients to be required to attend skill or job training courses. These welfare programs were never supposed to be used for long term assistance, yet here we are 70 years later and what has happened is just that. We were warned that this would happen back then, and now it has come true.
So again, what incentive does ANYONE have to work if their needs will be met by others? As more and more people adapt that attitude, how will we be able to sustain it?
We are already seeing companies move their workforce overseas. We are already seeing much or the rich moving from one state to others that have lower taxes. What happens when those rich people decide to move to a different country with lower taxes? Are you going to force them to stay? Revoke their citizenship? Most of the middle class can't afford to do that, but the rich certainly can. Where are we going to make up the difference?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine. Make skill and job training courses available. Also child care and transportation to make it possible for people to attend.
Then and when there are enough jobs for everyone you might have an argument.
Again. Do you understand that we have almost 10% unemployment?
People will work because they want more than just basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, medical care) met. They will want more and nicer stuff than they can get on the dole.
Companies and people who move their workforce overseas should not have the privileges that US companies have.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And do you understand that in the 1920's we were in the same predicament?
From New Deal or Raw Deal:
quote:
In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history. Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment. High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people”
“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent. These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies. Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains. President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.
Guess what happened when they took his advice? Unemployment dropped to 3.3% less than 5 years later.
Revenues to the government increased to over $1 billion a year, until FDR got in and raised the tax rates. Revenues then dropped to only $527 million a year.
This is economics 101 people.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: ... What happens when those rich people decide to move to a different country with lower taxes? Are you going to force them to stay? Revoke their citizenship?
Actually, rich Americans would have to revoke their own citizenship in order to escape federal taxes. The IRS has recently been getting more aggressive in going after the taxes that expatriate Americans owe.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, you seem to be skipping a President. You forget that the Sec. of Commerce for Presidents Harding and Coolidge - and who probably bears some of the credit for those tax policies - became the next president. Before he was elected he famously said,"We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land."
And do you know what happened next? Maybe you should try US History 101.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
100% inheritance tax I think should be instituted.
IP: Logged |
posted
Same thing as if they didn't have a rich parent?
Not that I think Blayne's suggestion is either workable or desirable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:Instead our goal should be wealth creation, plus a fairly even distribution of that wealth.
How would that work? For example, my wife starts a business using our house, live savings, etc as collateral. She works very hard establishing the business, doing constant market research, paying taxes, getting inspected, advertising, and on and on. After some years, the business grows enough to hire an employee. Again, the work load has not let up and she continues to work very very hard making the best business in the area. Eventually she is able to hire more and more employees, and after years and years of hard work, and risk mostly on her part, she is employing 25 people and making 7 digit income. What would be a fair redistribution of her income?
How much of her wealth and income is from having clean air, clean water, a professional police force to prevent crime, firefighters to prevent destruction, wellmaintained roads and postal service that insures goods and supplies arrive on time and regulation that insures larger monopolies don't compete you out with unethical business practices, education system that insured you had well trained honest employees etc.
IP: Logged |
posted
Subsistence social security, bareley enough to be above the poverty level.
What a temendously cruel idea. "Dear kids, your parents are both dead. You will now be ripped from the only home you've known (you can't afford the mortgage) and condemned to a life of poverty. Yes, your parents made provisions for you, but none of that matters, because we steal from orphans. It's okay, because after you've cracked under the multiple calamities, there's a nice cell in a prison that your dad paid for for you."
Just, wow. The events of Oliver Twist are not something to aspire to.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Instead our goal should be wealth creation, plus a fairly even distribution of that wealth.
How would that work? For example, my wife starts a business using our house, live savings, etc as collateral. She works very hard establishing the business, doing constant market research, paying taxes, getting inspected, advertising, and on and on. After some years, the business grows enough to hire an employee. Again, the work load has not let up and she continues to work very very hard making the best business in the area. Eventually she is able to hire more and more employees, and after years and years of hard work, and risk mostly on her part, she is employing 25 people and making 7 digit income. What would be a fair redistribution of her income?
How much of her wealth and income is from having clean air, clean water, a professional police force to prevent crime, firefighters to prevent destruction, wellmaintained roads and postal service that insures goods and supplies arrive on time and regulation that insures larger monopolies don't compete you out with unethical business practices, education system that insured you had well trained honest employees etc.
Which is already granted to everyone! Everyone is rich! Yay!
No need to steal from the person who did all the work and took all the risks.
I have to imagine that this is deliberate provocation. You can't imagine that people will work to create businesses that create jobs if there is no benefit to it for them.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Subsistence social security, bareley enough to be above the poverty level.
What a temendously cruel idea. "Dear kids, your parents are both dead. You will now be ripped from the only home you've known (you can't afford the mortgage) and condemned to a life of poverty. Yes, your parents made provisions for you, but none of that matters, because we steal from orphans. It's okay, because after you've cracked under the multiple calamities, there's a nice cell in a prison that your dad paid for for you."
Just, wow. The events of Oliver Twist are not something to aspire to.
And how are they are worse off than a child who had nothing to inherit (except perhaps their parents' last medical bills) in the first place?
Again, I am not advocating anything near a %100 inheritance tax, but you might want to spread that sympathy for orphans around a bit.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your goal is to reduce all orphans to the same state? Is that seriously something you value - cut down everyone so no one has more than another, even if their parents would have provided for them? If a tragedy like both parents dying happens, make sure they never forget by stealing their home as well?
Are you REALLY advocating turning ALL orphans into Oliver Twist? Did you read that book and think, "What a great idea! The best way to support orphans is to make sure that all of them have the least possible."
I am honestly boggled. You actually think that stealing from orphans is a good idea.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, she is defending the idea. Whether is just rhetorical or not, she is defending it with the idiotic suggestion that as long as there is SOMEONE out there with a worse life, then there is no injustice being done.
Crossing one's fingers doesn't let anyone off the hook. If you don't want to advocate the idea, don't defend it.
Unless, of course, you're just being contrarian for the hell of it because it's me, which is...about what I expect from someone who defends stealing from orphans.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Aerin:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:Instead our goal should be wealth creation, plus a fairly even distribution of that wealth.
How would that work? For example, my wife starts a business using our house, live savings, etc as collateral. She works very hard establishing the business, doing constant market research, paying taxes, getting inspected, advertising, and on and on. After some years, the business grows enough to hire an employee. Again, the work load has not let up and she continues to work very very hard making the best business in the area. Eventually she is able to hire more and more employees, and after years and years of hard work, and risk mostly on her part, she is employing 25 people and making 7 digit income. What would be a fair redistribution of her income?
How much of her wealth and income is from having clean air, clean water, a professional police force to prevent crime, firefighters to prevent destruction, wellmaintained roads and postal service that insures goods and supplies arrive on time and regulation that insures larger monopolies don't compete you out with unethical business practices, education system that insured you had well trained honest employees etc.
Which is already granted to everyone! Everyone is rich! Yay!
No need to steal from the person who did all the work and took all the risks.
I have to imagine that this is deliberate provocation. You can't imagine that people will work to create businesses that create jobs if there is no benefit to it for them.
Without those taxes you would not have those services, and you would have no ability to create such wealth.
IP: Logged |
Do you know why?
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And how are they are worse off than a child who had nothing to inherit (except perhaps their parents' last medical bills) in the first place?
Again, I am not advocating anything near a %100 inheritance tax, but you might want to spread that sympathy for orphans around a bit.
Are there no workhouses? No prisons? Bah humbug, let them die and decrease the surplus population!
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think inhearitance tax is a good thing...
But I also think that the mega rich should chip in a bit more, spread around the love yo!
boots is not suggesting that society strip the rich down to poverty level...she said so specifically and you ignoring that and inferring on her character is dishonest (or at least showing a very low interest in truth) of you.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, all I know is that my bed is extremely comfortable, and I would like to lounge around in it and still receive paychecks. So redistribute away. The richer the better, Robin Hood.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been on welfare and I have wealthy family so I at some level know that I will always have basic needs met. Guess what? It is not enough. I want to buy my daughter the light up shoes and go out to restaurants and hire illegal immigrants to mow my lawn and clean my house. I think making sure everyone has minimal needs will not destroy incentive to work because we like perks. Now if you were to take all money and redistribute evenly so my daughter only got the light up shoes if everyone did, yeah, that would destroy motivation to work. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is interesting to me how the countries that became really socialist - Cuba, the Soviet Union, China - became that way in bloody revolution when the gap between the rich and the poor became crushing. Countries that are merely progressive and find a balance between production and distribution of wealth - say, Canada - are reasonably pleasant places.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I do have a huge problem with people that have nothing wrong with them that simply refuse to work to pay the bills.
You've already said that. My question is, why do you have a problem with it?
quote:Take me up on my challenge if you disagree with me. Pay all of my bills while I sit at home. I will even periodically send you a thank you card (with money you provide to me of course) showing my gratitude for your generosity.
It's not part of my view that I should pay all of your bills.
Rather, I'm saying that low-income people, whether disabled or not, whether employed or not, should be provided the equivalent of a living wage.
If you'd like to challenge me to pay the amount of taxes needed to make that happen, I'd be happy to accept that challenge.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I do have a huge problem with people that have nothing wrong with them that simply refuse to work to pay the bills.
You've already said that. My question is, why do you have a problem with it?
I have a problem with it because I find such behavior unethical, even immoral. By taking another's earnings you depriving them of a percentage of their life. The earner receives no compensation. I can't conceive of a justifiable reason to take some of a person's life and use it to support the life and leisure of lazy individuals. Conversely, why do you feel we should tolerate such selfish behavior?
-------------
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Countries that are merely progressive and find a balance between production and distribution of wealth - say, Canada - are reasonably pleasant places.
I don't ever want to live in Canada. How 'pleasant' a country is must be a matter of perspective.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Sez you. Most Canadians wouldn't want to live in your third world nation so I guess the feeling is mutual.
IP: Logged |
posted
So, are you saying that all or most people on unemployment are simply too lazy to work, or that whatever percent of the people on unemployment who happen to be lazy?
I happen to be on unemployment, and I take care of my two small children, and I do look for work, but it is very difficult to find anything in this economy that is good enough to pay a stranger to watch my children. Most jobs I would take would end up loosing me money after child care costs, not to mention the risk of them being mistreated.
In your book does that make me lazy?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heya Blayne...what do you say to this article which says that 75-90% of the population of Canada live within 100 miles of the U.S. border?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Means we need to move the border south. You don't want Minnesota anyways right?
IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I'd say you can have that little swampy, bug infected, humid, muddy, frozen piece of redneck hell, but I'm really not in charge of that.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I do have a huge problem with people that have nothing wrong with them that simply refuse to work to pay the bills.
You've already said that. My question is, why do you have a problem with it?
quote:Take me up on my challenge if you disagree with me. Pay all of my bills while I sit at home. I will even periodically send you a thank you card (with money you provide to me of course) showing my gratitude for your generosity.
It's not part of my view that I should pay all of your bills.
Rather, I'm saying that low-income people, whether disabled or not, whether employed or not, should be provided the equivalent of a living wage.
If you'd like to challenge me to pay the amount of taxes needed to make that happen, I'd be happy to accept that challenge.
What do you consider a living wage? Over 99% of poor people have a home and fridge, 97.7% have a television, and 97.5% have a stove / oven. Six percent have a jacuzzi. Over 76% have Air Conditioning. Over 62% have cable or internet. Over 50% of poor households with kids have a video game system. Would you tell me that the poor do not have enough to meet their basic needs? Around 89% of those considered poor say that have enough to eat, though only 60% say they always have the food they want to eat.
So it looks like only 11% of the poor here in the US actually need our help. If we only had 11% of the poor we currently have, you wouldn't hear one peep out of me. Instead, we have a growing population of poor, many of which blame someone else for their problems. I worked hard to get where I am right now, and there is nothing stopping most of the poor from going out there and bettering their situation. When over 50% of the country does not pay taxes, we don't have a problem with the rich not paying enough. We have a problem with people not getting off their asses and doing something about it.
Of course, seeing as how you said it isn't your view that you should have to pay my bills, I don't even know why we are having this conversation, since we obviously share the same view. Otherwise, send me a PM and I'll give you my address so you can start sending me checks.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Just because they have what could be considered a luxury items considering they're in the first world doesn't mean jack.
IP: Logged |
posted
Your stats really make it clear how technology items formerly regarded as luxurious have become ubiquitous. I quickly searched my local craigslist and I found fridges for under $100, as well as a TV + futon for $25. I hardly think it irresponsible to indulge in mod cons like ovens or fridges, or even ACs. Do you want poor people to live like 16th century peasants? In the mean time, can these poor people afford, say, child care while they work? Or to live in a safe neighborhood? Or to fund their kids' educations?
Check your tax stat. That is possibly true of federal income tax, but many more people pay payroll taxes.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, are you unclear about how taxes work? For example, you may think that it is a good idea to use tax money for the police department. That does not mean that you have to write a check for it all by yourself. Helping those less fortunate is something we would all do together as we are able.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, are you saying that all or most people on unemployment are simply too lazy to work, or that whatever percent of the people on unemployment who happen to be lazy?
I happen to be on unemployment, and I take care of my two small children, and I do look for work, but it is very difficult to find anything in this economy that is good enough to pay a stranger to watch my children. Most jobs I would take would end up loosing me money after child care costs, not to mention the risk of them being mistreated.
In your book does that make me lazy?
My response was in reference to 'people that have nothing wrong with them that simply refuse to work to pay the bills.' I don't have a problem with someone receiving unemployment - for a reasonable amount of time - as long as they are seeking employment and want to once again be financially self-sustaining.
Losing one's job and unemployment can create very trying circumstances, no doubt, but I think far too many in our hedonistic society balk at the dramatic lifestyle changes unemployment can require of people. I admire the people that handle such occasions with patient determination.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, btw have you figured out the answer to our little history quiz? What were the results of that economic strategy guaranteed to end all poverty in the US?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: What do you consider a living wage? Over 99% of poor people have a home and fridge, 97.7% have a television, and 97.5% have a stove / oven. Six percent have a jacuzzi. Over 76% have Air Conditioning. Over 62% have cable or internet. Over 50% of poor households with kids have a video game system. Would you tell me that the poor do not have enough to meet their basic needs? Around 89% of those considered poor say that have enough to eat, though only 60% say they always have the food they want to eat.
There are a number of explanations for this. One is that, as you might expect, many people are poor now who were not poor a couple of years ago. I imagine many of them have some nice appliances and such left over from when they had enough money to buy them.
Additionally, I imagine much of the nicer stuff owned by poor people was bought with credit rather than cash. One of the most severe social problems in the US is how many poor and middle-class families live beyond their means. So, having these things doesn't necessarily imply that they "have enough money for them." It would be better if they had enough money to buy these things without taking out loans.
I don't know where you get your stats, but from what I understand the percentage of American families that are food-insecure is higher than the number you quote for the percentage of poor families (it was 15% in 2009).
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When over 50% of the country does not pay taxes, we don't have a problem with the rich not paying enough. We have a problem with people not getting off their asses and doing something about it.
As fugu explained earlier in this thread, the EITC (which is what keeps the poor from paying income tax) is one of the most effective social programs we have, and its expansion would, if anything, bolster the economy.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
boots is not suggesting that society strip the rich down to poverty level...she said so specifically and you ignoring that and inferring on her character is dishonest (or at least showing a very low interest in truth) of you.
It's equally dishonest of boots to accuse Aerin of not caring about poor orphans...
quote: you might want to spread that sympathy for orphans around a bit.
posted
capaxinfiniti: Thank you for the clarification.
maui babe: I think you are stretching it quite a bit. boots' suggestion hardly typified a lack of care on Aerin's part. Where as Aerin's assumptions went directly against boot's words and exaggerated her suggestion to include an intention of harming orphans to the point of being ridiculous.
boots and I often butt heads, but she always makes effort to at least understand where I am coming from.
I don't think Aerin's comments were warranted or fair.
Of course boots can and will stand up for herself, but it irks me to no end when people jump to judgmental conclusions and then throw them back in your face like they have caught you in a crime when all the negatives are of their own invention.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It most certainly was an accusation of not caring about orphans. She also did it because an ad hominem was the only option possible when her ideas couldn't be defended on their own merits.
Acting as if there is no injustice done as long as there is someone worse off is such a massively stupid idea I can only think that either a stroke took place or it is deliberate stupidity in order to be contrary.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Stone-Wolf. I have discovered over time that it is unproductive to engage Aerin when she gets like this. I do appreciate the support, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Geraine, are you unclear about how taxes work? For example, you may think that it is a good idea to use tax money for the police department. That does not mean that you have to write a check for it all by yourself. Helping those less fortunate is something we would all do together as we are able.
I am quite clear. I make my living dealing with taxes. I COMPLETELY agree with you that we should help the less fortunate as we are able. The problem is that I'm being forced to do it. The only difference me and you have when it comes to using money to help the needy is that I believe it to be a choice, not a requirement.
I understand people fall on hard times and I want them to be taken care of. It is the chronic receivers I have a problem with. I don't think we should just throw people out on the streets, but I think a higher amount of responsibility and accountability needs to be placed on people who receive government assistance. Being on government assistance for a year when times are tough is one thing. Being on it for 10 years is another.
If recipients are able and were required to do community service for the assistance they receive, I wouldn't be as critical.
It is sad that the homeless guy that holds a "Will work for food" sign is more willing to do a job than many people on federal assistance.
Stone_Wolf I am sorry for your situation, and I wasn't calling you lazy. I think I've clarified my position that it is the chronic recipients I have a problem with.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, do you think that I should have a choice about whether to support the huge amounts of money we wasted on two wars? Could I opt out of that?
Helping the poor helps society in general.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
