Damn it, I'M entitled, ENTITLED I TELL YOU
America currently is becoming one big WELFARE state. President Obama is the impetus in America becoming a nation of people who contend that they should be entitled to the gub'ment(play on words, here) footing the bills, e.g. Obama"care" and raising the minimum wage. There are those who believe that there is "mass inequality" among the socioeconomic classes and that the wealthier classes should foot the bill for the poorer classes. Yes, America has gone from a nation where hard work, sacrifice, and responsibility were treasured, even prized to an America when people believe that they are entitled to living the good life although they don't wish to work and sacrifice for it. Instead, they believe that the government should grant them these things as part of their inalienable right as Americans. This doesn't only extend to Americans but even immigrants, particular illegals, feel the SAME way. In their eyes, this is America and they are thus ENTITLED. Let's discuss this!Yes, why don't all you unemployed stop claiming the right to a life, eff off and die and leave the floor clear for the 1% ers to make even more money.
Do you mean the 1% who pay the main chunk of the tax take John?
That'll be the day when the 1% pay a large chunk of their income in taxes.
When that "chunk" each year is more than I'll earn in a lifetime I have to say it is pretty large. Doubt I could pick it up, if in $1 bills and certainly not if in coin. Yes, it is large.
I highly doubt it's nearly 40% of their total earned income, like I had to pay when I was working at Walmart.
If the rich paid 40% of their total earned wealth in taxes each year (without resorting to pretty evil means to disguise and hide their wealth), we wouldn't be in a deficit. In fact, they should be paying more taxes because, as we all know, "with great power comes great responsibility." And what could be a more appropriate picture of power than money?Come, come. That's total nonsense and you know it.
Total confiscation of all the wealth of the top 1%, not just earnings, won't pay the deficit for more than one year. Total confiscation of the earnings of the top 10% won't, either.
Such tales, spreading confusion and false expectations, are beneath you.Quite frankly, the rich have rigged the playing field in their favor by creating avenues of inexhaustible income. They make far more money than they let on. If those jokers paid out what they owed the government (which is a joke because the government is in hock to them every time the FED prints a dollar that's borrowed) everyone would be living in relative comfort. If I'm wrong, please let me know...
The tax on $2 million would have far less affect on the payer than the tax on $20,000.
There is nothing in your earlier post about any effect on the payer. Just the size of the tax bill they pay.
But if you want to talk about that, can we start with why the rich should pay more when the poor benefit more? Without the story of "access to politicians", please?But they don't pay more do they? They might pay a larger amount but not more.
And why should the rich pay for the benefit of the poor? The rich get far more benefits out of society than the poor, many of who are poor precisely because the rich are rich.Not sure how you do arithmetic, but in my world 1,000,000 (amount paid by the rich) is most definitely more than 5,000 (amount I pay).
"The rich get far more benefits out of society than the poor" Specifics please, outside of "access to politicians"?I belive that not all roads in the USA are toll roads. The rich make much more use of the roads even though they are paid for by all. I don't know the situation in the USA but in Britain many cultural organisations such as the National Ballet are heavily subsidised by the tax payers but still with ticket prices well ut of reach of the less well off.
I could go on but it's summer today in England!Few of our roads are toll. But the uber rich seldom use them; they either sit at home or fly their private jets.
They DO go to the opera and such, but those things are not out of reach for any but the ultra poor or those that choose to use their income in different ways. I, for instance, would not go to the opera at all - I choose to put my monies in visiting nature and camping.Are there no municipal airfields in the USA then?
And how many of those nature reserves and camping grounds are subsidised by the government?Oh, sure. Most are operated by governments of some kind. But stiff payment is required to use them, too - payments which about cover the cost of having it.
Same thing with my campgrounds; they are run by government but I pay a fee to use them which is intended to cover the cost of maintaining them. I also pay a yearly tax for my RV which goes to the campgrounds and forests.
People camping in tents pay less or often nothing at all, though - being "rich" by owning an RV means I have to support them, too, even though I exist below the poverty level. I just choose to put my limited funds into an RV instead of things like opera or baseball games.How strange! Vehicle taxes in the UK are substantially higher than in the US and yet they do not allow the support of things none motoring, in fact but more is spent on highways than is covered by the tax they generate!
The motorist generates over £48 billion a year to the government of which about 20% is spent on the highways, the rest goes towards paying for many other things.
There is no other way to put it than people who earn more are discriminated against just for the fact they earn more. If this isn't the case all income tax rates would be the same. If they were the same the better off would be still paying a lot more in terms of amount but the system would be fair because they would be being treated the same as anyone else.But if we all paid the same taxes that would be grossly unfair. And if everybody paid the same taxes how would that result in the wealthy paying more than the poor?
Why would everyone paying $1,000 (or whatever is needed) into a common pool for identical services (military, roads, police, etc.) be unfair? Do you have a different definition of "fair" than "equal"?
Person A earns 20000 pa and pays 5%
Person B earns 200,000 and pays 0.5%
Very fair! Very equal!I'm sorry, but payments are not tendered in %'s. $'s can be used, as can (depending on location), pounds, euros, yen and a host of other currencies. Just not %'s - a good thing as there are none in my wallet.
Those percent's represent dollars or pounds or yen or whatever currency you choose to use.
OK, if you say so. How many $$ is a %? What's the conversion factor for this new money? Or does 1 % = 1 $ or 1 yen or 1 euro - just one of whatever currency is being discussed?
Maybe you read it wrong John as I know you are not that stupid.
When I said tax rates that means the percentage of tax you pay on your income. Therefore 20% os much lower than 40%.
Now correct me if I am wrong but 20% of £200000 is still considerably more than 20% of £20000, so both would be paying the same tax rate but both would be contributing different amounts.But the person paying 20% of £20,000 will still be hit a lot harder than the person paying 20% of £200,000.
That is why in their wisdom our law makers made income tax graduated/There is no wisdom when it comes to tax laws.
I'm reality the both do not feel the impact of tax unless there is no tax.
There is no fairness in any tax system, the tax system is there to raise as a much as possible and in reality the more you tax someone the more likely they are of moving out of your tax regime (as with France which is back peddling furiously) which is more likely to impact on the lower paid than if the tax system was fair.
Wilderness how does the United States calculate the amount of tax you pay? Is it not a percentage of your income?
20% of $20000 = $4000
20% of$200000 = $40000
Does the man who earns $ 20000 dollars pay income tax at the same rate as the man who earns $ 200000 in the states or as John calls it is there a graduated system?It's not what I call it. It is what every country in the world calls it and operates in every country in the world that collects taxes.
In the UK every tax payer pays 20% tax on their first £31,865 of income.20% after the first £10k allowance.
There are a few countries john that don't discriminate against the better off, I seem to remember Estonia (I think) charges the same rate for everyone.
Anyway still doesn't make it fair on the true sense of the meaning.
Also nobody uses more of taxpayer funded services than the less well of do.Seem Quilligraphers post earlier today in this thread.
And actually, it's not discriminating against the better off, it's discriminating against the worse off.So a higher tax rate for the better off is discriminating against the worse off?
Not sure how you work that out John!No, watch my lips carefully. an equal rate of tax for the better off is discriminating against the worse off.
No John that doesn't fit the description of discrimination does it john? Discrimination is treating one group differently from another for socioeconomic reasons.
Of you don't want the poor discriminated against then don't discriminate against those who work and those who have wealth.So if you were on the minimum wage, say £12,500 you would think it fair to pay £2,500 in tax?
Somebody earning £125,000 would not face any difficulties but you would.Firstly if I was on minimum wage and earning £12.500 I would only pay tax on £2,500 after your personal allowance, so you would pay about £500 in tax.
Someone earning £125,000 under the current system would pay about £42,000 in tax.
Now I may not experience the hardship but it is totally unfair to think that I should pay a higher percentage just because I earn more.
If I paid at the same rate it would still be over £25,000 in tax from a single earner.But you said that everybody should pay the same! If you get a personal allowance that means that not everybody is paying the same, in fact we'd be back to the better off paying more and that's where we came in.
Why exclude that one? It's the most damning of all, and the most dangerous.
Good morning, John . Hi there, Wilderness. How are you both doing?
May I just drop off a few specifics showing how the wealthy absorb more benefits from society and from public policy than do the poor:
The mortgage interest tax deduction is available to all taxpayers but the rich with the largest mortgages reap a greater benefit than the poor. {1}
A middle class worker in most states pays as high as 9.5% state and local sales tax for basic fixed assets like a car or TV. However, the 1% of the population that buys 83% of the stock traded each day on Wall Street pay nearly nada. When the poor man’s asset looses value, he is left with junk. When the rich man’s asset looses value it become a tax credit. Not many poor people buy stock. {2} {3}
The US is spending $820B for defense and $396B for welfare. {4} While defending the country benefits everyone, it benefits the rich more because they have more assets to defend. As of 2010, the top 1% of households owned 35.4% of ALL privately held wealth, {5}
Government investments in the nation's infrastructure, i.e. transportation, education, research & development, energy, police, the court systems, etc., is used more by the wealthy than the poor. {6}
Interstate highways and airports provide a much greater benefit to interstate commerce and to wealthier people with the means to travel than they do for the poor. {7}
Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by corporate America. {8}
The billions of dollars in stimulus money handed over to banks and corporations went disproportionately to wealthy CEOs, corporate bonuses and upper class stock holders.
The largest, wealthiest, most powerful companies in the world are on the public dole. The Fortune 500 corporations alone accounted for more than 16,000 subsidy awards, worth $63 billion – mostly in the form of tax breaks. {9}
While all current Medicare enrollees are getting more out of Medicare in benefits than what they paid in, the windfall is greatest for the wealthy.{10}
Low end wage earners making $117,000 per year or less are having 6.2% of their earnings deducted for Social Security tax over the course of a full year. The upper 1% average earning was $1,531,000 in 2011 but $1,413,000 was exempt from Social Security tax. Bottom line: poor workers pays 6.2% of their income, average upper 1% rich earners pays 0.5% of their income. {11}
Government treaties like NAFTA and others have greatly improved profits going into the pockets of the wealthty while the poor among us ended up without a job. {12}
The ten largest tax breaks in the 2013 tax code saved taxpayers a whopping $900 billion. More than half went to the richest 20 percent households. Seventeen percent went to the top 1% households. {13}
I hope this helps.
{1} http://www.alternet.org/story/152284/4_ … page=0%2C1
{2} http://taxfoundation.org/article/state- … rates-2014
{3} Alternet.org
{4} http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_ … ng_40.html
{5} http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
{6} http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm
{7} Ibid.
{8} Ibid
{9} http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts … e-welfare/
{10} http://www.nber.org/papers/w6013
{11} http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won … _blog.html
{12} Alternet.org
{13}
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … itures.pdfGood morning Quilligrapher, I hope you are well too. I see you are still in fine form when it comes to cutting through to the real facts and I thank you for doing what I should have done.
It's always amusing to see how much right-wingers hate poor people and actively advocate for their deaths. Y'know, just like Jesus would have done.
Unless of course, they want to use them as slaves first.
Well not even slaves, slave owners had a financial investment in their slaves and on the whole didn't want them to die.
Well, gentlemen, I just couldn't resist this blog. Well, for John Holden, I am one of those person's you consider to be an entitlement baby. But hold up, since I did work nearly 30 thirty years and had health issues while working which got me into the predicament I'm in today. I got injured and nobody wants to acknowledge that yes I got hurt on the job but blamed me. So, through this I had surgeries and right now I want to go back to work but there are health issues that haven't been solved so working today, I may have to stop working and right now employers don't like it when they can't use their employees until they are used up. Yes I said used up. The one percent is the ones who want slaves. Well, I need time to heal but right now getting the best medical care to bring my body back to health isn't in my reaches. Before for you say anything about Obama Care for you, this is years before Obama and years before Clinton. I could not be covered by medical insurance because I had preexisting conditions which makes me ineligible. So, for this to be considered that I am lazy and need to get out and get a JOB. Right I been there and done that. I worked after graduating from high school up until my years going to college. I have a Paralegal Diploma, Associate Degree in Business and my Bachelors Degree in General Studies
in the College of Public Administration, my areas of Concentration are Black Studies and Political Science. So I tried to cover a lot of ground with understanding where I stand when it comes to work. I can rely on my past skills and work for less than what I am worth and with that since being out of work for so long, employers are not going to hire you right off the back because they can hire someone younger and fresh. Still in respect to our current government officials, I am not speaking about the president but the house of representatives and the senate. Those persons are the ones we sent to the capital to work on issues that effects us. Gentleman the face of the matter is for years persons in this United States have been wrong and still being wrong and yes we have damaged bodies out there that yes they have clouded judgment and yes we also have those who are truly law abiding citizens who deserves every right and they don't deserve to be degraded and told they need to eff off and die. You wouldn't want anyone to put you in a category and disrespected. So choose your battles carefully. And for the one percent who feels they are over taxed. Read the article from Warren Buffett who was concerned for his secretary who paid more in taxes then he did and at her pay grade. When poor people who did not finish high school work service low paying jobs, yes is does hurt them more because the taxes they pay are a bit but they work on it and that is why they get to take part in the entitlement programs and for the record there are those who don't even get to take advantage of the entitlement programs because the bar is set so low that it does knock a lot of people out of the rage. And for another note look at the amount of the entitlement programs take out of the entire budget for the government and you will see that it is just a small portion of that budget. While we have spending all over the place the entitlement programs aren't really spending all of the budget. And if we had a fair country where everyone is treated fair and respectful, we wouldn't have to rely on government to manage. So look at the big picture, if you never been there don't assume you understand that position. Thank you.Mslabrown48
You said "Well, gentlemen, I just couldn't resist this blog. Well, for John Holden, I am one of those person's you consider to be an entitlement baby."
I think you misread me by about 180 degrees.
It's best if you actually get the feel for what is being said by who before jumping in. It saves embarrassment
- PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago
0I once shared a house with a roommate who made considerably less money than I did. I made about $3000 per month; she made about $1500. I was just out of college and had experienced many different roommates. She was the only one I felt completely compatible with. She was also one of my best friends and I wanted to keep her as a roommate. However, I also wanted to live in a nicer house than she could afford. I suggested that I pay 2/3 of the rent and utilities, since my proportion of our total income was about 2/3. That way, she could afford to live there, too. I felt completely comfortable with the arrangement, as I gained a nicer home, with a roommate I enjoyed, but still paid less than I would have if I were alone.
This is how I view income and taxes. I don't mind paying more taxes than someone who makes less money. That person might provide child care, stock grocery shelves, clean hotel rooms, cut the grass at the park, or provide home care to seniors, all services that I either directly use or am happy are being provided for those who need them. To me, their work is just as necessary and important as my work or the work of a CEO, professional basketball player, or highly paid speaker. I want the people who provide those services to be able to afford health care, nutritious food, child care, transportation, and leisure activities. Why do I want this? Because we all benefit from the work done by low-wage workers, and I recognize and value their contribution to the pleasant existence most of us enjoy.
It's as simple as that, really. I don't understand why a person making $200,000 per year would resent paying 40% of their income in taxes while a person paying $20,000 pays none. To me, we're all part of a greater community; each is part of a whole and we all benefit if the individual parts are healthy and cared for.
Just my two cents. I think some people have forgotten what it means to work together and value everyone's contribution. I'm appalled by the lack of empathy, the belief of some that they have earned what they have with no help from anyone and therefore no responsibility to give back in the same proportion in which they have benefited.You don't understand why people paying massive taxes resent doing so. That's a little hard to comprehend, regardless of your own feelings on taxes - it's a pretty straightforward concept. Some people resent paying more than their share of the cost of the country.
But, given that you don't understand such resentment, do you feel that you and the others that enjoy paying for others should force, on penalty of jail, high payments from those that don't want to give them? Because that is a tough concept for me to swallow - the decision that a select group has an innate right to take what belongs to others and do with it as they wish.We've been forcing people to pay taxes for years. It is the cost of living here. Some people don't like it. Like I always say, vote for those who reflect your values.
Edited to add: I just moved back to Oregon. My county has a wonderful waste disposal site where we can bring our household garbage as well recyclables and dispose of them for free. It is conveniently located and well staffed. Today, I saw 6 staff. It is kept clean and tidy with separate containers for every type of recyclable. The place is nonstop busy five days a week. I am thrilled that my tax dollars pay for this facility. It is in stark contrast to the Missouri county in which we last lived. We had to drive 35 miles to reach "the dump." The only visible staff was the person in the booth who collected money. It cost a minimum of $35 regardless of the size of your load. There was no recycling area, just a giant hole in the ground. It was ugly and smelly. Many of the rural people let their garbage accumulate, or dug their own garbage holes on their property, rather than pay for hauling stuff to the the dump.
Every time I visit this efficient and tidy waste disposal site, I think about how it would not be possible without taxes. Maybe it's just me, but I enjoy the amenities provided by the taxes I contribute. Now, if I could just get people to vote for those who would not get us into unnecessary wars....Guess that's a great way to go...as long as you're in the majority and willing to live under the "might makes right" cloud.
Personally, I find that protection for the minority is especially important, just as the writers of our constitution and other early documents did. Far more important that giving the majority whatever they want at the expense of the minority, to be specific.I completely agree that the protection of the minority is essential. That doesn't mean that the minority gets to make their own rules, though. As with all things, it is a balancing act.
Agreed - it is always a balancing act. But rights, particularly those rights that do not affect others, should never be taken away with a darn good reason. And that includes the right of ownership; the majority does not have the right to take anything belonging to anyone else except, perhaps, to maintain the country after all other possibilities are exhausted.
For that reason I support extra taxation on the rich; if the middle class tried to pay it all they would not survive. But that does NOT include the massive charity functions that the majority in this country has somehow decided they have the right to support by taking more from the minority.I also support more taxation of the rich and so do many rich people. That would only be fair and equitable. The middle class(what is left of it) is overburdened with taxes as it is.
The middle class is overburdened, not because the country needs the money, but because of the massive entitlement programs that are NOT needed in the majority of cases.
And while I support charities and give myself, I do NOT support forcibly taking more from one than another simply to provide free cell phones and other luxuries for people that refuse to work for them.I totally agree with the last statement. Yes, I support taxation on relevant programs but not to help indolent people have social entitlements. I, for example, believe in the reduction of welfare except for those who are mentally and/or physically challenged, those who unemployed and need a short-term hand up, and for the elderly. Others who CAN, should either work or STARVE. Good talking to you again, Wilderness, you represent needed commonsense!
I see that in the USA, just as in the UK, a much higher percentage of welfare payments go to those in work than those unemployed.
Raising the minimum wage and putting this burden back on the employers rather than the tax payer would be the easiest and fastest way of reducing this burden.
You want the benefits of a low wage society but are unwilling to pay the cost. It is you, rather than them, that is the entitlement junky.
I'd like a little clarification on the "might makes right" statement. Do you believe enforcement of laws is an example of "might makes right"? I always thought "might makes right" refers to the ability to get your own way through power rather than through the normal laws, rules or procedures.
It sounds like you believe in the right of the majority to enforce their wishes on everyone else. "Might makes right" in other words. Am I mistaken, and you DO care for the rights, feelings and ownership of the minority?
Yes, of course I care for the rights and ownership of the minority. We have laws with which I completely disagree. Our system is imperfect. However, I am comfortable living under laws and either obeying, ignoring, or working to change those with which I have a problem. To me, "might makes right" does not apply to enforcement of duly enacted laws.
However, you still didn't clarify what YOU mean by "might makes right."When the majority runs roughshod over the minority - specifically when the poor tax the rich because they want more freebies - it is an example of "might makes right". The poor have the votes, and somehow always seem to vote to take more from someone else for what they want.
We see it in charity programs buying luxuries. We see it in political pork. We see it everywhere we look - an example is free lunches for kids. In my area, the city/county has advertised free lunches for kids now that they can't get it in school. Now, very few families (and none on food stamps) cannot afford a sandwich for their kid, but now the city will provide it FOR the parents too lazy to make it themselves. Just come to one of the parks and get your "free" lunch!
I had occasion to be there one day when it was going on - want to guess what kids were there? All the ones in the commercial day care centers! There was a line of about 50 kids, every one of them wearing a shirt from one of a half dozen day care centers. The parking lot was full of vans from those same centers, and for every dozen kids or so there was an obvious "teacher" taking care of the group.
So the daycares make a killing with free park use and free lunch to boot, while the taxpayers are duped into paying for it all. The "take from the rich and give to the poor" group forces higher taxes...to subsidize the day care centers! While the voters, supporting feeding the poor little kids that will undoubtedly starve and die without that free lunch (and are sitting at home as opposed to being in the park), are demanding even more from those nasty rich people with all the money to expand the charity programs that aren't needed.See, this is what I don't get. You seem so resentful about kids getting a free lunch that they don't "deserve." Day care providers are taking advantage of the free lunch program and you resent that. Perhaps this problem should be addressed. Have you called those responsible for the program to see if they are working on it?
The bigger picture, though, is why does this bother you so much when a much larger part of our budget is spent funding the military and private contractors to occupy countries and kill people? Or, bailing out banks without prosecuting those who broke the law?
Are you suggesting we scrap the free lunch program because it is being abused? I would prefer the abuse be addressed and mitigated as much as possible.
I think many peoples' values are messed up, focusing on the poor gaming the system while the rich and powerful are lauded for gaming the system.You're right - I absolutely resent being forced to subsidize a business, and doubly so for one already making a profit.
I also resent being forced to subsidize parents that are already subsidized with food stamps but are too lazy to fix their kids a sandwich at the public's expense. And all the crying and false tales about starving children isn't going to change that resentment.
Sorry - I firmly believe that without a military this country wouldn't last a decade. It wouldn't last 2 years, with the radical Islamists all wanting to kill an American. Nor do gross exaggerations about bailing out criminal corporations add to the discussion - as far as I know none were bailed out of anything, unless the criminal actions were discovered long after the bailout and had nothing to do with the reasons for that bailout. (Actually, I am almost always against bailing out a company anyway - if it can't stay afloat and make a profit let someone else have the niche. The public should not have to subsidize any business).
From what I saw, stop the nonsense in the free lunch program and there won't be any customers. Not one. So how about lets just do away with it and stop trying to find excuses and methods to give away the little bit of money I've worked a lifetime to save up? In this case, to people that are already getting the food they can't buy themselves?
If you don't like the rich to game the system, quit voting for politicians that try to mold the country and it's people via the tax code. Social engineering via taxes ALWAYS produces loopholes - that's how they work - and the rich will take advantage of that, just as the politicians want them to. So instead of trying to put your vote to politicians applauding ever increasing entitlement programs, put it to those that close the loopholes, don't insert pork into the bills, and honestly try to run the country. Not turn it into a Nanny state.Have you never thought that without a military that saw itself as the worlds police force, even in countries that did not want to be policed by the USA there might not be as many radical Islamists wanting to fight back against an unwelcome police force, in fact there might not be as many radical Islamists full stop?
You say you resent being forced to subsidize a business, yet you spend much more time (on these forums anyway) grousing about poor people getting entitlements. Free cell phones seems to be your particular bugaboo. ;-) You can correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not on the forums a lot anymore, but I don't recall multi-paragraph posts about wealthy people or corporations gaming the system (or is it brilliantly managing their money?) to make a few (oh, wait, a LOT) of extra bucks. Instead, it's about poor people getting free this and free that. My only point in saying this is that I believe the poor are an easy target and I'm just trying to point out that massive waste occurs in much larger numbers in other areas.
Regarding military, I have never said we don't need it. I said we don't need to unnecessarily invade and occupy other countries, killing people and wasting over a trillion dollars. Of course we need a strong defense, but I don't think the the 1+ trillion dollars spent in Iraq was a wise use of our money. What's worse, it resulted in unnecessary death, destruction, and broken bodies and lives that we are still paying for. (I'm focusing on money here, though I'm morally repulsed by what our country did. Horrifying.)
Regarding the tax code, I agree it needs to be simplified. Do you know anyone running for office with this goal?
I don't like anyone gaming the system, but I don't get outraged over a free lunch. I just don't.
Is the government coming after your savings? Wow, I didn't know that could happen. Please explain about these "methods to give away the little bit of money I've worked a lifetime to save up?"Yep - I go after the poor people that refuse to work and you go after the business that follow the law as desired by the congress you voted for. Not a whole lot of difference at the bottom line, is there? Except that you say all business is gaming the system fraudulently, and I say too many people have made a lifestyle out of charity.
It's pretty neat to say, after the fact, that we didn't need to invade Iraq isn't it? Too bad you couldn't have provided proof there were no WMD before the invasion. Second guessing is real easy, PP, but securing our country with inadequate information just isn't. I'll take the military, with all it's obscene spending, over giving away luxuries to people that won't work any day. Or even to those that DO work and still can't afford the nice things.
Nope - no one running to simplify the tax code. They lose their jobs that way when the pork disappears.
No, you go after corporations following the law and benefiting from the social engineering projects of congressmen buying votes. I go after waste and subsidies regardless of the cost.
They (the people constantly expanding the entitlement programs) take my little bit of savings by taxing it away from me. The same way the took too much of my meager salary for 50 years. They also tax away the insurance payments I paid for with those 50 years of labor. I can only hope that one day they'll realize they really DON"T have some kind of innate right to what I've earned, to do with as they wish even to the point of giving it away.Just have to set the record straight on a few things....
..."you say all business is gaming the system fraudulently, and I say too many people have made a lifestyle out of charity." No, I do not say that all business is gaming the system fraudulently. That would be a ridiculous stance on my part, given that until just a few months ago I was a program manager for a nonprofit whose mission is to help small businesses grow. What I am saying is that gaming the system, which I define as using legal means to give yourself an advantage that you either do not need or that is unethical, is done by both the rich and the poor. Some people seem to think it's "smart" when rich people do it and "stealing" when poor people do it. Just pointing out the discrepancy.
It's pretty neat to say, after the fact, that we didn't need to invade Iraq isn't it? Well, yeah, it was also pretty neat when I and a whole host of other people questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq before the fact. Too bad we were called traitorous and un-American. Still waiting for that apology from the war cheerleaders for their stupid, criminal war.
I go after waste and subsidies regardless of the cost. How do you "go after" waste and subsidies? I'd be interested in hearing about that, or are you simply referring to posting your opinion on this forum?
They (the people constantly expanding the entitlement programs) take my little bit of savings by taxing it away from me. Your savings are taxed? Hmmm, I've never heard of that.
Bottom line: It's easy to pick on the poor, uneducated, or disadvantaged. It's scarier to take on the big money. But, the big money is where the big waste occurs. Just sayin'....I would change the definition of "gaming" just a bit to using the legal system to benefit in ways that were not intended by the lawmakers. When business takes a giant tax break for hiring from inner cities, it is not gaming; that was the intent of the law. When the poor claim food stamps for non-existent children, that is gaming.
As I said, it's too bad you couldn't prove your claims. It would have made a big difference; proof is always preferable to opinions.
Yep - in the forums and elsewhere. I don't shoot or even sue those I feel are unethical and stealing from us all.
I assume you've never had earnings from a savings plan, then, because it is taxable income. And ALL withdrawals from an IRA are taxable. Any earnings from investments (a form of savings) are taxable.
No, the big money isn't the only place the big fraud happens. It just takes more of the little guys, and thus harder to find and stop, that it does the big ones.Hm! Businessman eventually caught for defrauding the British government of £6 million in VAT. Doesn't receive a prison sentence and no order to repay.
Woman caught claiming £6,000 that she wasn't entitled to. Six months and an order to repay.Where was that John?
There was a VAT fraud in Birmingham a few years ago and the perpetrators were sent down for quite a long time, one for about 15 years I think. Maybe it was because they were Asians...........
Plenty of fraud and robbery going on at all levels John and many get put in prison for it. What I can't understand is why no politicians were jailed for their frauds!Sounds like our "justice" system, where money buys that best lawyer and the whole thing is a game to be played - the best game player wins, regardless of truth, guilt or anything else.
You're right again Wilderness. It is not a few but many who expect freebies and handouts. In New York, there is a FREE summer food program for children. I want to ask where are the parents? Aren't parents supposed to provide food for their children, not the government. If parents cannot provide the basics for their children then they shouldn't have children in the first place. America is becoming increasingly a society of moochers or as my late father would say, lazy parasites who want something for nothing. Oh yes Wilderness, there was a lady, who during a conversation, revealed to me that her aunt used food stamps to buy choice cuts of steak and lobster which the latter freezes. There are many hard working people who can't afford to purchase such items. THE NERVE!
Tell me, what do you think parents should do if having children during good times they then fall on bad times and are no longer able to care for them as well as they did?
Are you advocating euthanasia for the children of the new poor or are you advocating the much more expensive option of removing the children from their parents?
And Wlderness, this isn't a "what about the children" post, it is a genuine enquiry, I do want to know how Grace would resolve the problem.Can't answer for Grace, but can give some possibilities, not one of which is to simply increase charity.
Go back to workfare - no work, no pay. In govt. make-work programs if necessary. If children are hungery, put them in govt run institutions until/unless the parents decide to support them. Now workfare was tried some years ago here, and was reasonably successful in cutting welfare costs and forcing people to support themselves. It wasn't popular, though - being forced to actually work for your food seems to be demeaning and disgusting, plus all those people being paid to search out and provide for the poor were losing their jobs, too.
Limit the time in subsidized housing - providing housing for a lifetime has to end.
Attack, and attack HARD the massive number of fraud cases. From food stamps to medicaid, put an end to it with tough penalties and lots of investigations.
Get rid of illegal aliens. The claim is that they don't get welfare, but they absolutely do and it's draining the system.Who is going to pay for these government funded make work programs? Oops, I think I just answered my own question.
Limit the time in subsidise housing, fine, but then you have to limit the time spent working for a wage that won't allow folk to afford housing which would probably mean that you would have to end the concept of housing as a good investment.
Attack fraud. I'm all for that. Stop corporations setting up off shore shells to avoid paying tax and although its not fraud, stop subsidising mortgagee's.
Actually, like the UK, the biggest drain on welfare is not the unemployed but the elderly and retired. Kill everybody that makes it to their 65th birthday.Oh, I think if you stop the subsidies, the working for a non-living wage will take care of itself. There are very few people out there that will willingly starve before working - I know I've held multiple jobs at once and always, always kept an eye open for better positions.
Sorry, neither of your faux suggestions will limit charity spending. Instead, stop the doctor billing for services not rendered and jail the "disabled" that plays golf in their copious free time.
In the US, most retiree's are not on welfare; instead they are drawing from the insurance/retirement plan they contributed to for a lifetime. That stupid people encouraged evil politicians to consistently raid those funds for their pork projects limits what the retiree can get, but it is usually enough to live on.Even fewer than you think who would starve before eating. Just make work available for everybody (at above minimum wage) the ones left after you have done that, castaway on a desert island for all I care.
If most retirees are not on welfare then why is the largest portion of US welfare spending on the retired? I looked that up, got it off a government site. Suppose they could be lying but why?Why does a teen, looking for a few bucks to take his girl to the movies, need $15 an hour? Or a laborer new to the marketplace and with no skills? Or a retiree, wanting a little extra to play bingo with? Why do these people have to be paid so much? The jobs they are doing aren't worth that much, why should they get it?
I suspect you are including Social Security payments in "welfare". That term seems that have a lot of disagreement as to what it applies to.OK, put an upper limit of 21 on the minimum wage, that'll take care of your kids working for pocket money.
Over 21 have a more realistic minimum wage.
I didn't drill down too far on the government site I looked at. It just listed retirement under welfare.Over 21 and working a skilled job gets more than minimum wage anyway. Anyone working jobs and doing tasks that are worth minimum or less, well, they get what they earn.
That would be my guess, John. Yes, some retired get food stamps and such - those that never worked. Housewives or the disabled. Perhaps some in expensive full care homes. The majority of elderly live off of Social Security, which is not a charity, entitlement or welfare program. It is an "insurance" (Social Security Insurance, or SSI) program that was paid for by working.So all those who's skills are limited to washing up or sweeping floors don't deserve a life!
Deserve? Deserve?? Ask mother nature that question.
But John, how many people do you know that really are incapable of doing anything worth more than the minimum? But are still capable of (for example) using and appreciating a computer but can't afford one on minimum wage? Those people we call "disabled" and they generally lead a happy life with or without the luxuries of a much higher wage.So you think some people don't deserve to live just because they aren't as intelligent as you!
I know plenty of people who are capable of doing much more than minimum wage jobs, many of them would think themselves lucky to get even a minimum wage job.
Wilderness, TOTALLY AGREE with you here. I was going to add something but I couldn't have stated this better myself. I am going to hug you for this intelligent statement. America has to change from a nation of moochers who want entitlement at every corner to the America of my parents which stressed accountability, hard work, ethics, and responsibility. The entitlement gravy train is going to last only so far then America can no more fit the bill as it is going to be bankrupt.
Yes, there should be more stringent rules for welfare. Only those who have demonstrated a mental/physical disability, unemployment need(2 months maximum), and the indigent elderly. Anyone else haul a$$ and work, do any work, it's work. The law should be either work or starve for the able bodied, no exceptions. Bring workfare in force and really enforce workfare. No free food programs for children; this is ridiculous, again, where ARE the parents? If you cannot afford children, then DON'T have THEM, simple isn't it.
With the illegal immigrants, SEND THEM home. They are doing nothing for the country. In fact, they ARE doing TO the country. Exhausting our social system, oh no, DRAINING our social systems. They have no contributable skills so WE DON'T NEED them. Send them home and there should be establishment of militia and vigilante groups to prevent illegals from crossing our borders. Enough is enough. 3/4 of the social programs in America we DON'T need. Without these inane programs, the America economy should be well functioning again. While we are at it, Obama"care" should be eliminated. Obama is %^&%#* this country bigtime, time to remove HIM and many of the Democrats in the White House.Yeah but you aren't as right wing as those Americans. They think anybody who tolerates another is left wing!
This ISN'T right wing at all but highly logical and practical in outlook, don't YOU agree, Silver!
You may think so, not everybody would agree with you.
To put it more succinctly, people who are realistic AGREE; however, those who are UTOPIC, UNREALISTIC, and HAVEN'T GROWN UP, of course, DISAGREE. The 60s are OH-ver. This is the 2010s and it's time to discard such 60s, utopic inanities and apply some sound logical solutions to the socioeconomic malaise which is America. There is TOO MUCH welfare and social entitlement programs, time to REALLY CLEAN house and cut these programs by 60&-75%, that would HELP the American socioeconomic fiber plenty, DON'T YOU AGREE, John?
IT IS TIME TO LEAVE OZ and FACE REALITY!
Let's start by agreeing the cause of the problem and it ain't the victims.
OH DEAR LORD, each person, unless he/she is mentally/psychologically challenged, IS responsible for HIS/HER life choices. If one makes bad/stupid life choices, then SUFFER. No one told the person to make the life choices he/she did! He/she ELECTED to make the BAD/STUPID life choices!
To edify, many people are POOR in America because they made bad life choices. Either they did poorly in school, did not want to attend school in the first place-being traunt, having teenage pregnancies before being capable of being parents, having more children than they can afford, and in general wanting to take the easy way out of situations instead of using intelligent choices to make their lives better. Now, now, the excuses are getting a bit tired and weary.
It's so SIMPLE to make the correct life choices to enchance one's life socioeconomically; however, many POOR people DON'T think, they are just passively reactive and that's why they are in the socioeconomic malaise THEY'RE in. Many POOR people in America WANT to be POOR, BELIEVE it or NOT. If one does not want to be poor, HE/SHE isn't poor.
It's THAT simple. Get an education that is in DEMAND, have SMALL families, don't marry until one is socioeconomically established, save and invest for one's future among many more positive things. This ISN'T rocket science at all but good old fashioned inductive and deductive..........LOGIC! Also STAY away from people who have an anti-success and anti-achievement mentality and associate with people who have a success and achievement ethic. Remember, like attracts like. If one mingles with unsuccessful and negative people, guess what, he/she will also be unsuccessful and negative. See, simple commonsense!
So let's see if I've got this right.
Fred gets a good job, brings up his kids well and starts to save for his retirement.
The economy crashes, he loses his job and try as he may he can't find another one despite retraining for as many options as possible. He still can't get a job because there are folk with much more experience than him trying for the same jobs.
That was all because of a bad choice he made!
You'll have to point out the bad choice to me because I can't see it, unless it was his choice of parents.Happened to me, just like that. Or a little like that - like everyone else in the country I saw the recession coming, along with the job losses, and stuffed every cent I could away. No movies, no eating out. No travel, no new clothes. No fancy steaks at home either. Cut all costs to the bone and save every dime, for 2 years.
And when the job loss came (and it did, coupled with shorter term layoffs and a permanent 25% pay cut) I made it through without terrible loss. Living standard dropped, yes, but we kept the house and car. We still ate, and not off the backs of someone else. Life choices, like Grace said. Some made the choice to save what they could, some to spend as if there was no tomorrow.And some didn't even have enough to spend like there was no today, let alone tomorrow.
Yes, I know. A tiny percentage of the population, although you would have it to be 3/4 of everyone.
It depends on what you call a tiny percent. I wouldn't call 20% + a tiny percentage.
I see a major problem in your edit about the garbage. That dump is NOT "free"; it is paid for by the citizens of the area that pay taxes (and likely by the citizens clear across the country as nearly everything contains a federal subsidy now days). It's nice that you use and appreciate it, but wouldn't it be better to "pay as you go", letting the people that actually use the facility pay for it?
We have a county dump some 30 miles away, too, but also a small facility about 1/2 mile from my home. It costs $5 to dump there, which pays for the facility and transportation to the main dump. I don't use it much, already paying for home pickup, but when I do I don't complain about the cost. I use it; I pay for it. But when I don't use it I don't have to pay for someone else to use it, either, through my taxes, and that seems much fairer to me.
I camp a lot at state parks, and pay a fee when I do. That fee supports the campground, not the general tax base, and that's as it should be. You don't camp, you don't pay for it.
When I swim at the municipal pool, I pay for it. When I don't use it, I don't pay as the use fees take care of the cost. And that's as it should be, too.
We are not a socialist or communist nation, where everyone owns everything. We own certain things ourselves and the majority has no right to take it away from us because they can't (or won't) fund their charity giveaways themselves. It's great to be charitable, but it is evil itself to force others to be so. We do not have that right ethically or morally, although the majority in this country has given itself the legal right.You missed a key word in Prettypanther's garbage post (it wasn't really garbage PP) and that was "recycling" that means that the tax payer gets a lot of the cost back from the rubbish.
Waste dumped into a hole in the ground unsorted creates massive pollution, the tax payer eventually pays to clear that pollution up.
Would you rather that your taxes were used for something positive or are you such a begrudger that you'll happily pay more tax as long as nobody benefits from it?
Nothing's wrong with paying more of the living expenses according to salary. That would only be fair and also ethical. However, your roommate was also paying her share and taking responsibility for her living expenses. It is not as if you were paying ALL the expenses while she was paying none.
However, in this newly entitled America, there are people who expect others to foot THEIR bill and pay their way into living the good life. Such people insist that the wealthy since they have tons of income should SHARE with them, helping the latter to live better. There are some people who believe that since they are poor, no one should be rich.
In one of my college lectures(this was in 1974), a welfare mother spoke as to what she received wasn't enough. She further asserted that welfare should pay her MORE, adding that no one should be rich while she was on welfare. She had been on welfare for years and did not intend to get off welfare.I agree that those people do exist. They will always exist whenever a society tries to provide for those in need. IF we wish to be a people who cares for those in need (and I do), then we can take steps to mitigate against those who take advantage. However, I believe it is counterproductive to focus on the few who are compulsive takers. Focusing on the small group who are purposefully lazy encourages the selfish and greedy to point fingers at the poor and allows them to absolve themselves of their societal responsibilities. It encourages a culture of "I" rather than "us."
You know, it seems the biggest disagreement is always that "few" you reference.
Because it isn't a "few" - it is millions and millions of people that refuse to put out the effort to either buy their own luxuries or even feed themselves. Lots of that is opinion - what is a "need" and what is a "want" - and that makes for huge disagreement.
- PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago0
I understand your perspective. Using the dump as an example, why do you think it is provided by government to begin with? Because having a place that is accessible, free (at time of use; I already pointed out that it was paid for by taxes), clean and well organized encourages frequent use by residents and benefits the entire county by contributing to the cleanliness, sanitation, and beauty of the area, not to mention a much higher rate of recycling.
If I, as a citizen, disagreed with this use of my taxpayer dollars, I would take steps to discontinue it. That is why we vote for our representatives who decide how the money will be spent.
We merely have different values. Some people were happy to fund the Iraq War, for example, while I am horrified that my taxpayer dollars were used to unnecessarily invade a country. I assume you are content to pay taxes for some things....?
Related Discussions
- 35
Do you contend that poor people in America are ENTITLED, want others to support
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
Do you contend that poor people in America are ENTITLED, want others to support them, & give themservices which they believe are rights such as housing, food, medical care, college education,& related services? Why? Why not?
- 38
Entitlement in America....
by Grace Marguerite Williams 22 months ago
Poor people have become the most entitled people in America. They believe that others should provide them with a comfortable lifestyle. They also assert that housing, education, & health services are a right. It used to be that poor people were humble. They knew...
- 7
What do you think: Lebron said "it's about damn time" per winning a championshi
by Missing Link 11 years ago
What do you think: Lebron said "it's about damn time" per winning a championship.Did you notice Lebron's answer "It's about damn time" to Stuart Scott's question "what is it like to finally win a championship?" He said this in the awards ceremony at the end...
- 82
Health care and entitlement
by janesix 10 years ago
What is entitlement anyway? The right to something? Why does socialized health care have to be considered "bad" when we pay taxes for things that benefit everyone, like roads and education?Good health would certainly be a benefit to society as a whole. People are able to work more and...
- 104
Reagan economist knocks tentative deficit commission proposals
by Ralph Deeds 13 years ago
Re “Some Fiscal Reality” (editorial, Nov. 11):The current federal budget deficit was caused mainly by unnecessary wars and related military spending, the worst economic downturn since the 1930s, and large tax cuts and bailouts for the rich, all stemming from the Bush administration.Now a bipartisan...
- 109
Who is Responsible for the Poverty?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 4 years ago
Why there is poverty in specific people while others are well to do people? Who are responsible for poverty - the poor people themselves, Government policies or the system?