Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone maxing out the benefits in a large city already - receiving Section 8, SNAP, maybe TANF (maybe not,) maybe WIC, utility assistance and receiving Medicaid has no reason to trade all of that in for the 11k.
You know, the folks that I know personally that posters here claim don't exist.
If it replaced Section 8 and SNAP alone, I would be for it.
Thomas Sowell cites three things that will garauntee (statistically) you will not live in poverty (assuming you work fulltime):
1) Finish High School
2) Don't marry before you are twenty
3) Don't have a baby before you are married
Don't see any barriers to that advice that would preclude any races, genders, orientations, religions from following that advice.
For the mentally, and in some cases the physically, handi-capped, we do need a social safety net, but a case by case application with demonstrated needs is likely a more effective way to spend government funding, and more importantly, ensure that those uncapable of taking care of themselves have their needs and requirements met.
Last edited by Tuck's Dad; 07-14-2014 at 04:17 PM..
We have never had a wealth tax, so I am assuming when you cite the "super wealthy" not paying enough taxes, you are in fact refering to top income earners and not proposing taxing wealth.
Most of the "super wealthy" you refer to (Sorros, Buffet, Romney, Koch brothers, etc) paid income tax on their income, and then pay taxes on that same income when it is withdrawn from investments, so even though it's taxed at a lower rate than earned income, it is actually money that has been generated after taxes, not before, and could be argued it is money taxed twice.
By the way, that's why Harry Reid probably correctly said Romney "paid no Income Taxes in more than ten years." Romney is retired and lives off capital gains from investments being sold, and it's not subject to "Income Tax" it is subject to capital gains tax, however. You could make the same claim about Sorros or Buffet and very likely be correct, their "Income Tax" years are way behind them!
Last edited by Tuck's Dad; 07-14-2014 at 04:28 PM..
Im married, I have 2 kids at home as of 30 minutes ago it appears, and make a little over 100K. Im definately doing better then the vast majority of folks.
a 30% additional tax would cost me 30K say. Ouch.
But then.....
I would get 10K back. My wife would get 10K, and the one stepson who is 20 would get 10K. Hmmm
And if children got it? Id be better off. Think about that. A guy making 100,000 a year would be better off.
If I was single? Ouch. I'd be making 80K instead of 100K. hmmm....no big deal. and a guaranteed income I could live off of......barely. BARELY.
How about when I was...22? I made minimum wage. this would have made a huge difference. a LOT more stability, and a much higher probability I would have attended college then then later.
I'd prefer 12K simply because 12 months though and index it to inflation.
Thomas Sowell cites three things that will garauntee (statistically) you will not live in poverty (assuming you work fulltime):
1) Finish High School
2) Don't marry before you are twenty
3) Don't have a baby before you are married
Don't see any barriers to that advice that would preclude any races, genders, orientations, religions from following that advice.
For the mentally, and in some cases the physically, handi-capped, we do need a social safety net, but a case by case application with demonstrated needs is likely a more effective way to spend government funding, and more importantly, ensure that those uncapable of taking care of themselves have their needs and requirements met.
Trying to preach morality?
Society's goal is to allow people the basic minimum standard of living. Therefore, this post is basically a large strawman argument.
Another worshipper of the rich. Income tax is only one form of tax. You forgot about sales tax, payroll tax, and property tax. The rich aren't paying their fair share of payroll taxes, but the guy at McDonalds is.
Raising taxes on the 1% will not have an adverse impact on the economy. Quite the contrary actually. The deficit will fall, and more revenue will go toward infrastructure and education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck's Dad
We have never had a wealth tax, so I am assuming when you cite the "super wealthy" not paying enough taxes, you are in fact refering to top income earners and not proposing taxing wealth.
No, but we did have top marginal rates of 94%. Now we have 39.6% and the plutocrats are screaming bloody murder. Under Bush they had the lowest taxes ever since America rose to global prominence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck's Dad
Most of the "super wealthy" you refer to (Sorros, Buffet, Romney, Koch brothers, etc) paid income tax on their income, and then pay taxes on that same income when it is withdrawn from investments, so even though it's taxed at a lower rate than earned income, it is actually money that has been generated after taxes, not before, and could be argued it is money taxed twice.
No, you cannot.
Capital gains taxes are on the gains. Gains are income subject to tax. If your $1 becomes $1.20, that $0.20 was not taxed. This is nothing but rich apologist. It defies logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck's Dad
By the way, that's why Harry Reid probably correctly said Romney "paid no Income Taxes in more than ten years." Romney is retired and lives off capital gains from investments being sold, and it's not subject to "Income Tax" it is subject to capital gains tax, however. You could make the same claim about Sorros or Buffet and very likely be correct, their "Income Tax" years are way behind them!
Yes and there is no reason capital gains taxes should be taxed less than earned income. This is just another one of the flaws in our tax code to benefit the rich. Lower income families don't invest because the barrier to entry is capital.
Another worshipper of the rich. Income tax is only one form of tax. You forgot about sales tax, payroll tax, and property tax. The rich aren't paying their fair share of payroll taxes, but the guy at McDonalds is.
The guy at McDonald's is not paying income taxes. FICA yes, SS, yes, income tax? Nope! If it does happen to get "witheld, it will be refunded, and likely qualify for EIC providing more money from a refund than put into the system through taxation.
Raising taxes on the 1% will not have an adverse impact on the economy. Quite the contrary actually. The deficit will fall, and more revenue will go toward infrastructure and education.
This assumes static economics. That works with government budgeting where an increase in one budget line has absolute negative effect on one or more other budget lines. It does not work in a dynamic economic model (like when an economy grows), and when people can adjust behaviors based on economic costs. You can "punish" the rich by increase taxes on them, but they will not be hurt beyond not expanding business - i.e. growing the economy. Bit of a Hobson's choice: is it more important to you to "punish the rich" or grow the economy so there are jobs and opportunity again?
No, but we did have top marginal rates of 94%. Now we have 39.6% and the plutocrats are screaming bloody murder. Under Bush they had the lowest taxes ever since America rose to global prominence.
Laffer curve. 36% brings in the absolute most revenue as a taxation policy number. See above. Are you trying to increase revenue, or "punish the rich"? they are some what mutually exclusive.
No, you cannot.
Capital gains taxes are on the gains. Gains are income subject to tax. If your $1 becomes $1.20, that $0.20 was not taxed. This is nothing but rich apologist. It defies logic.
I said it was arguable. Yup, I understand the idea of only being taxed on the gain, but you are investing with taxed dollars. It is the before tax or after tax aspect that makes it arguable as to whether the money is taxed twice.
Yes and there is no reason capital gains taxes should be taxed less than earned income. This is just another one of the flaws in our tax code to benefit the rich. Lower income families don't invest because the barrier to entry is capital.
Sure there is. Who would take the high level of risks on returns without lower tax rates? you are limited to what you can write off, but unlimited on what you can be taxed. I can't write off a loss, but I am hit with 39.6% tax rate if I succeed, and can only invest money that has already been taxed at 39.6% (not including FICA, SS, State income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, in some areas city income taxes).
Try reading some Sowell, Freidman, and Hayek, rather than just Keynes and Marx. It will be an enthralling experience, I promise!
Society's goal is to allow people the basic minimum standard of living. Therefore, this post is basically a large strawman argument.
I didn't get that memo.
I am always amazed that people do not understand capitalism has produced what socialism promises.
I would always choose to live in a society with unequal and vastly varied wealth than a society of absolute equality of poverty - and that's not a strawman, ANY true socialist economy has simply equalized poverty (with the exception of a very small elite ruling class), not enriched the populace by "spreading" the wealth of the rich.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and index it to inflation.
