RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes

RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 8:43:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Wouldn't that necessarily include deciding not to pay taxes at all? quote: In theory, sure, but that's not what I'm saying. Self contradictory No, it isn't. If you are deciding how much in taxes you want to pay, how is it contradictory to want to pay zero? quote: quote: The Lib's talk about "fair share" and other shit. "Fair share" and "flat tax" seem to always share the same sentence. Have the "libs" co-opted that plank of the "not libs" or is it now a shared goal? The lib's don't want a flat tax. The always talk about "the rich" having to pay "their fair share" and yet, not everyone pays as much as "the rich." It's only "the rich" that have to pay a fair share. quote: quote: How many of those Lib's also take their deductions? Does this mean that in order to be a "lib" one must pay more in taxes than they legally owe by not taking their legal deductions? If not then what the fuck does it mean? I'm not surprised you're not following. If a lib is going to piss and moan about people not paying their fair share, especially when the lib is "the rich," why isn't it hypocritical for that rich lib to take every legal deduction, thereby reducing the amount in taxes he/she is paying? Obama saying that he had hundred's of thousands of dollars that he didn't need, yet, I'm betting he kept those hundreds of thousands of dollars. Completely hypocritical. You side with lib's paying what they legally owe and taking their legal deductions, yet don't support everyone doing the same damn thing? I guess you're just discriminating against one class and not another.

thishereboi -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 8:55:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice J.K. Rowling's seen the safety net from both sides: receiving benefits when she needed them and gladly paying to help others now. Who here wants to get rid of welfare/benefits for those who need them? The issue most people here have (among the ones that have issues with the US welfare system), is with those people who aren't just down on their luck, or have no choice in being able to sustain themselves. No one argues that those people should receive help. IMO, it sure doesn't sound like JK Rowling was a system abuser. I take no issue with her wanting to pay taxes, and not secreting money away from the tax man. But, you do understand that that is her choice, right? Obviously, she understands how she could reduce her tax liability. She chooses to not do that. Good on her. How about you let each individual decide on whether or not to pay more taxes? I got attacked on this forum just a few days ago for being on disability. That's sad. It's not like you decided one day you would be disabled. And being disabled you have enough shit to deal with, without putting up with attitudes like that. As to Ms. Rowling's use of the benefit, I'm fairly sure sitting in a coffee shop writing a childrens book would stir the ire of some people. Yea but some people love to find excuses to get stirred up. Her story is a good example that you never know what tomorrow will bring.

crazyml -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 8:59:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's only "the rich" that have to pay a fair share. I think you may be confused - I'm pretty sure that those who support higher tax rates for the highest earners would be doing so because they think that it's fairer. So... the people on lower income are paying a fair share, and the ones on the top incomes are paying a fair share. I'm almost 100% sure that they don't think that only the rich should pay a fair share, because that would be..... well.... unfair. As for people taking their deductions... of course they should. If they didn't they'd be paying an unfair share.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 9:11:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's only "the rich" that have to pay a fair share. I think you may be confused - I'm pretty sure that those who support higher tax rates for the highest earners would be doing so because they think that it's fairer. So... the people on lower income are paying a fair share, and the ones on the top incomes are paying a fair share. I'm almost 100% sure that they don't think that only the rich should pay a fair share, because that would be..... well.... unfair. So, "fair share" is a subjective term. There are people who have zero Federal income tax liability. Are they paying their fair share? quote: As for people taking their deductions... of course they should. If they didn't they'd be paying an unfair share. Sweet. So, all "the rich" who take their legal deductions, actually are paying their fair share. Someone might want to inform the Lib's...

crazyml -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 9:20:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's only "the rich" that have to pay a fair share. I think you may be confused - I'm pretty sure that those who support higher tax rates for the highest earners would be doing so because they think that it's fairer. So... the people on lower income are paying a fair share, and the ones on the top incomes are paying a fair share. I'm almost 100% sure that they don't think that only the rich should pay a fair share, because that would be..... well.... unfair. So, "fair share" is a subjective term. There are people who have zero Federal income tax liability. Are they paying their fair share? Of course "fair" is subjective (for fuck's sake). And yes, people who have incomes that are so low that they have no tax liability are paying their fair share. quote: quote: As for people taking their deductions... of course they should. If they didn't they'd be paying an unfair share. Sweet. So, all "the rich" who take their legal deductions, actually are paying their fair share. Someone might want to inform the Lib's... Err... yeah, sure. Now, as you so rightly spotted... "fair share" is subjective, and some might regard some of those legal deductions as a bit fucked up - But the answer to that is to change the law, not whine about people who are obeying the law. But... and here's where "Mr Subjective" enters the room again... I do think that sportsmen and women who domicile for tax purposes to avoid (quite legally) paying the taxes that would be liable were they domiciled for tax purposes in their own country should not be allowed to drape themselves in their national flag when they stand on the podium.

DomKen -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 9:22:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's only "the rich" that have to pay a fair share. I think you may be confused - I'm pretty sure that those who support higher tax rates for the highest earners would be doing so because they think that it's fairer. So... the people on lower income are paying a fair share, and the ones on the top incomes are paying a fair share. I'm almost 100% sure that they don't think that only the rich should pay a fair share, because that would be..... well.... unfair. So, "fair share" is a subjective term. There are people who have zero Federal income tax liability. Are they paying their fair share? quote: As for people taking their deductions... of course they should. If they didn't they'd be paying an unfair share. Sweet. So, all "the rich" who take their legal deductions, actually are paying their fair share. Someone might want to inform the Lib's... A progressive tax is better because those with more pay more becuase they do not suffer as much from the taxation. Take 20% of someone who's income is 100k/year and they may have to make some choices about whther to buy a new or used car. Take 20% from someone who makes 10k/year and he'll be deciding whether to pay rent/bills or eat. As to deductions I don't think anyone begrudges stuff like ther mortgage deduction but too often the wealthy misuse the tax system. For instance all the various tax shelter plans you hear about.

thompsonx -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 9:57:11 AM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Wouldn't that necessarily include deciding not to pay taxes at all? quote: quote: In theory, sure, but that's not what I'm saying. Self contradictory quote: No, it isn't. If you are deciding how much in taxes you want to pay, how is it contradictory to want to pay zero? English 101: "In theory,sure"=statement "but that is not what I am saying"=denial of previous statement. This is called self contradictory.

thompsonx -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 10:05:12 AM)
quote: quote: quote: The Lib's talk about "fair share" and other shit. "Fair share" and "flat tax" seem to always share the same sentence. Have the "libs" co-opted that plank of the "not libs" or is it now a shared goal? quote: The lib's don't want a flat tax. The always talk about "the rich" having to pay "their fair share" and yet, not everyone pays as much as "the rich." It's only "the rich" that have to pay a fair share. The "non libs" want a flat tax which the "non libs" consider to be "everyone paying their fair share". So if the concept of everyone paying their fair share is one supported by you, Why this quote: The Lib's talk about "fair share" and other shit.

thompsonx -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 10:21:18 AM)
quote: quote: quote: How many of those Lib's also take their deductions? Does this mean that in order to be a "lib" one must pay more in taxes than they legally owe by not taking their legal deductions? If not then what the fuck does it mean? quote: I'm not surprised you're not following. What the fuck does this mean. quote: If a lib is going to piss and moan about people not paying their fair share, especially when the lib is "the rich," Why does how much money the "lib" has affect this equation? Is it against the law for "libs" to have money? quote: why isn't it hypocritical for that rich lib to take every legal deduction, thereby reducing the amount in taxes he/she is paying? Following the law is hypocritical?[8\|] quote: Obama saying that he had hundred's of thousands of dollars that he didn't need, yet, I'm betting he kept those hundreds of thousands of dollars. Completely hypocritical. Calling something hypocritical is not the same as substantiating it. It would appear that this post is confusing the falure of the president to give those hundreds of thousands of dollars to charity with the president not paying his fair share. According to the "non-libs" 10% is his fair share. It should not be too difficult to find out if he paid his "fair share" quote: You side with lib's paying what they legally owe and taking their legal deductions, yet don't support everyone doing the same damn thing? This is a lie quote: I guess you're just discriminating against one class and not another. Guesses baised on unsubstantiated opinions are the hallmark of the fool.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 11:23:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen A progressive tax is better because those with more pay more becuase they do not suffer as much from the taxation. Take 20% of someone who's income is 100k/year and they may have to make some choices about whther to buy a new or used car. Take 20% from someone who makes 10k/year and he'll be deciding whether to pay rent/bills or eat. Wrong. This isn't about equal suffering, it's about a fair share. What you are saying is that a "fair share" isn't equal, regarding %-ages or raw numbers. That's just bullshit. All that does is support partisan tax code bullshit. quote: As to deductions I don't think anyone begrudges stuff like ther mortgage deduction but too often the wealthy misuse the tax system. For instance all the various tax shelter plans you hear about. Boo fucking hoo. They want to set up loopholes and then they bitch and whine when people find ways around them. Why do they do it? Because they want to keep what's theirs. They set up rules and the people react to the rules. That's the way everything works. That's also why most liberal economic plots fail in getting the results they think they'll get. They don't take into account the reaction to the plot.

thompsonx -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 12:06:18 PM)
quote: Boo fucking hoo. They want to set up loopholes and then they bitch and whine when people find ways around them. If "loophole"=a way around a regulation then why would someone want to find a way around a loophole?[8\|] quote: Why do they do it? Because they want to keep what's theirs. They set up rules and the people react to the rules. That's the way everything works. That's also why most liberal economic plots fail in getting the results they think they'll get. They don't take into account the reaction to the plot. Any validation for this piece of moronic shit? We would like to see examples of "liberal" economic plots that have failed? By extension which are the ones that succeeded since the post says "most" libral economic plots. By contrat what the fuck have the "non liberals" done that is working so well?

LizDeluxe -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 3:09:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Sounds to me like Ms Rowling has had a rags to riches fairytale life. If only her tale was the norm, and not the exception. She is somewhat the exception in that she chooses to remain in the UK instead of fleeing to a locale with a lower tax rate but using her as a poster child for why welfare works is disingenuous, at best.

dcnovice -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 3:27:02 PM)
quote: using her as a poster child for why welfare works is disingenuous, at best. Why?

DomKen -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 4:32:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen A progressive tax is better because those with more pay more becuase they do not suffer as much from the taxation. Take 20% of someone who's income is 100k/year and they may have to make some choices about whther to buy a new or used car. Take 20% from someone who makes 10k/year and he'll be deciding whether to pay rent/bills or eat. Wrong. This isn't about equal suffering, it's about a fair share. What you are saying is that a "fair share" isn't equal, regarding %-ages or raw numbers. That's just bullshit. All that does is support partisan tax code bullshit. do you know that the progrssive income tax in this country worked very well until the supply siders screwed it up and that it was initially setup by the Lincoln administration? It is also the standard in every developed nation on the planet and is widely credited with helping establish the economic conditions that created the middle class. quote: quote: As to deductions I don't think anyone begrudges stuff like ther mortgage deduction but too often the wealthy misuse the tax system. For instance all the various tax shelter plans you hear about. Boo fucking hoo. They want to set up loopholes and then they bitch and whine when people find ways around them. Why do they do it? Because they want to keep what's theirs. They set up rules and the people react to the rules. That's the way everything works. That's also why most liberal economic plots fail in getting the results they think they'll get. They don't take into account the reaction to the plot. Do you really think stuff like carried interest was set up by liberals? In actuality carried interest is the product of a couple of court rulings.

TheHeretic -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 5:52:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: using her as a poster child for why welfare works is disingenuous, at best. Why? Because her outcome was so far outside any sort of norm, DC. Without any specific desire for anyone else to get sand in their vaginas, I'll point out that we have a number or recipients of some sort of aid on this site who plug away on their keyboards all day, with nothing more to offer the world than brightly colored dryer lint, and zero prospect of it turning into a windfall or gainful employment. When welfare assistance goes wrong, it easily becomes a trap. The money is just barely enough to maintain a subsistence level existence. There are supplemental programs that can dramatically increase the quality of life, but remaining below the poverty line is the requirement. Who is going to trade a comfortable life at a subsidized lower middle class level, for scraping by at a working class lifestyle by getting a job that pays too well? Then there is the problem of it becoming the family business. The rule you'll find me hammering at every opportunity is the one that disincentivizes teenagers in welfare families from getting a job by considering their earnings part of the household income, and yanking it right back out of the head of household's benefits. Another change I'd like to see is a flat prohibition on anyone currently listed on a Section 8 voucher from putting their own name on the waiting list.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 5:56:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: quote: quote: How many of those Lib's also take their deductions? Does this mean that in order to be a "lib" one must pay more in taxes than they legally owe by not taking their legal deductions? If not then what the fuck does it mean? quote: I'm not surprised you're not following. What the fuck does this mean. quote: If a lib is going to piss and moan about people not paying their fair share, especially when the lib is "the rich," Why does how much money the "lib" has affect this equation? Is it against the law for "libs" to have money? quote: why isn't it hypocritical for that rich lib to take every legal deduction, thereby reducing the amount in taxes he/she is paying? Following the law is hypocritical?[8\|] quote: Obama saying that he had hundred's of thousands of dollars that he didn't need, yet, I'm betting he kept those hundreds of thousands of dollars. Completely hypocritical. Calling something hypocritical is not the same as substantiating it. It would appear that this post is confusing the falure of the president to give those hundreds of thousands of dollars to charity with the president not paying his fair share. According to the "non-libs" 10% is his fair share. It should not be too difficult to find out if he paid his "fair share" quote: You side with lib's paying what they legally owe and taking their legal deductions, yet don't support everyone doing the same damn thing? This is a lie quote: I guess you're just discriminating against one class and not another. Guesses baised on unsubstantiated opinions are the hallmark of the fool. Get back to me when you can follow a conversation. Until then...

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 6:00:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Boo fucking hoo. They want to set up loopholes and then they bitch and whine when people find ways around them. If "loophole"=a way around a regulation then why would someone want to find a way around a loophole?[8\|] quote: Why do they do it? Because they want to keep what's theirs. They set up rules and the people react to the rules. That's the way everything works. That's also why most liberal economic plots fail in getting the results they think they'll get. They don't take into account the reaction to the plot. Any validation for this piece of moronic shit? We would like to see examples of "liberal" economic plots that have failed? By extension which are the ones that succeeded since the post says "most" libral economic plots. By contrat what the fuck have the "non liberals" done that is working so well? History is my validation.

dcnovice -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 6:14:12 PM)
quote: History is my validation. Could you be a bit more specific please?

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 6:27:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: History is my validation. Could you be a bit more specific please? Sure. Read some history.

dcnovice -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 6:30:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: History is my validation. Could you be a bit more specific please? Sure. Read some history. LOL! Caught empty-handed, I see.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125