Tax Breaks for the Rich!

[fintstone]

Good post!

It may surprise you that I agree with you competely, at least in principle. The question though is what do we then do when someone w/ no $$ or education goes ahead and reproduces anyways? I don't have a brilliant answer for this one, but I agree wholeheartedly that govt. policies should promote self-sufficiency(sp?). This is one of those areas where I am more of a right-winger, I guess.

I would treat having a child without sufficient means to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care as child abuse.

[speeder]

I agree again, and this is an area where govt. should use its powers to encourage responsible behavior, and not the opposite. While they're at it, let's deal w/ overpopulation, controlling our borders, (this will go farther against terrorism than just about anything), and all of the other issues that we are "in denial" about.

[fintstone]

Denis
I agree....I think both parties are weak on these issues.

[fintstone]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lendaddy
"This top 1% of "wage earners" who pay 37.4% of income taxes, I wonder what percent of the nation's wealth they control."

I am struggling to figure out how this is any of your or my business????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, did you just say that?

It should be all of our business. Part of running an effective democracy is knowing the balance and distribution of wealth.

I know learning from history is a far off concept for some people but... If our country gets further twisted in to RICH and POOR classifications with no middle class then it will certainly change for the worse. We will just end up like other failed democracies over time. (as if the extremely wealthy really care though, they're all for here, now, and the all mighty dollar)
I agree with lendaddy. The government has no right to know specifically how much wealth I accumulate. If they tax my earnings when I receive them, they can extrapolate from there if they like. That is enough for their statistics. It is none of their business is I stuff it in my mattress and save it or spend it immediately...and they certainly should not be able base income taxes on whether I accumulate it or not..

[Superman]

No, Steve. Billy's got it exactly right. Capitalism requires a certain level of unemployment (at least, if you assume wages are at equilibrium). You see, the official "unemployment" rate does not include those who have stopped looking for jobs. The actual unemployment rate is much higher if you count the folks who have fallen out of the public assistance and actively looking for work categories. 4% (which is lower than we usually have, by the way) includes only those "frictionally" unemployed and available for a new job.

If there were no unemployment, then there would be no one available to take new jobs unless you entice them away from their existing jobs. To do that, employers would need to make a more attractive offer, and wages would rise. Heavens! What a disaster that would be, eh? Placing a high value on a person's weekdays before 6 pm? Heresy!

Indeed, capitalism simply does not offer full employment. It cannot. There must be a pool of available labor, or else wages are out of equilibrium.

[milehi914]

BillyPilgrim - I agree you don't reward people for having children. However, I don't believe that you punish the child for the actions of the parent. Ideally, the money that is given to the parent that has had more children is to provide for that new child. I don't see it as a reward, but that is where we differ. If I don't want kids playing in my front yard I need to replace the grass with rocks.

Steve interpretted, correctly, my intention in my previous post. There will always be, in my opinion, people who will be unemployable. Some will not go to work out of personal choice and others will not be absorbed into the workforce because of outside factors. The disabled population is just one example of the later. There are people who want to work but for various reason are not able to become successfully employed. I have heard stats that the disabled have unemployment rates between 35 - 50%. The welfare system is not perfect but it is there to keep people from dying. Some people abuse it while some use it in the light it was created, to help in a time of need.

Chris in Denver

[Superman]

Lendaddy and Fint apparently buy into the new definition of "freedom." Freedom to hoard. Freedom from sharing. Because selfishness is the important and desirable fuel that fires our society. Again, this is back to the dissonance I see between Christianity and Capitalism. Get it while you can, get as much as you can. Be one of the winners.

Some of my more cynical socialist friends also suggest that our system also requires homelessness. The bottom portion of society gets to watch the Mercedes' go by, and imagine that "Maybe, just maybe, there is so much wealth out there that maybe, maybe I could have a little." And when we drive by in our Porsches, we can say "There, but for the grace and kindness of my benevolent employer, go I. I'd better hump it back to the office before someone becomes disappointed with my performance." We are so frightened of the possibility that we could be out of work long enough to lose everything, that we will practically eat poop if our employer asks.

That, my friends, is the heart of capitalism.

[fintstone]

Chris
Of course it can be a reward. Just because you don't view it as one...it is important how the person having children view it. If a person would rather stay home than work...and many would...having two or three children will do it every time.
I used to have a job that required me to work with kids in high school. I had several young women (14-16 years old tell me they had their babies so they would not have to ride the school bus. The school system provided them private transportation to school, child care, and let them out early to miss traffic and pick up their child from the school nursery. They also told me that they enjoyed the attention and were no treated "like adults" by the teachers. Every day when they brought their babies to school, they were surrounded by 12 and 13 year olds who "couldn't wait to have their babies" and get the "special" treatment.

[fintstone]

Lendaddy and Fint apparently buy into the new definition of "freedom." Freedom to hoard. Freedom from sharing.

You are wrong. Freedom is the choice to share or not. If the government requires it at gunpoint...it is hardly "sharing" and more akin to theft. Believing that it is not government's place to take what a person has worked for and earned and give it to another who has not does not make a person any less charitable, only freedom loving. If you want to give away your earnings voluntarily (chairity)...that is your choice, but you should not be able to do the same with mine or anyone else's.

[fintstone]

Some of my more cynical socialist friends also suggest that our system also requires homelessness. The bottom portion of society gets to watch the Mercedes' go by, and imagine that "Maybe, just maybe, there is so much wealth out there that maybe, maybe I could have a little." And when we drive by in our Porsches, we can say "There, but for the grace and kindness of my benevolent employer, go I. I'd better hump it back to the office before someone becomes disappointed with my performance." We are so frightened of the possibility that we could be out of work long enough to lose everything, that we will practically eat poop if our employer asks.

Gee Sup...I'm outta work...have been for a long time. Could you send me a few bucks so I can treat my Porsche to a few new parts? After all your Porsche is 9 years newer and nicer than mine. I'm sure it has nothing to do with your working harder or planning better than me. You are just one of the "fortunate" that "won life's lottery" and we should have the same things. Share.

[milehi914]

Flintstone - No doubt some will view it as a reward but I believe it to be very few that do. It would be interesting to track those girls down now and get their views. I would guess their views have changed from when they were 13 years old. It does beg the question...where were their parents? Working two jobs to make ends meet? I too have worked with high school kids and their families. One example of mine was a father that had 6 kids and they were living in poverty (lucky to have power, heat and food at the same time). The dad had been permanently injured on the job and was raising his 6 children on his disability check, roughly $400 a month. He did not see his $400 a month as any reward, he was embarassed when I would visit the home but it did provide a minimum for he and his children. His eldest son, a high school dropout, made use of my program, state funds, and went to work. Last time I spoke with him he was making $15+ an hour as a trailer mechanic, had purchased a home and moved his family in and was supporting them. A good return on my tax dollar investment. (However, $15 an hour and a family of 7 is still considered poverty)

We could trade stories all day I'm sure.

Chris in Denver

[fintstone]

Chris
I agree with you in the case you presented. Sounds like a good program. I am sure there are lots of exceptions. The problem I have is with folks who do not have sufficient income prior to parenting 2,3, or even 6 children. Even in the case you cite, I don't find a person with six children and one income faultless. Most folks that live "in poverty," do so as a result of poor choices they made.

[Superman]

Chris' story is a lot more "real life" than the caricature deadbeatwelfaremothers stories some of you guys are passing on from your mindless conservative talk show propaganda. Most minimum wage earners are not high school boysliving with mom and dad and supporting a car in an urban setting. Most minimum wage earners are rural heads of household.

And Fint, I wonder if a review of your 10:03 pm post would make you want to modify a term or two. The reason I ask, is that I could not have made my point any better than you did there.

[Superman]

There you go. Calling Chris' story the "exception." What makes you guys think the radio talk-show stories are the "rule," and proper appropriate use of government programs is somehow the "exception?"

Oh, that's right. It's commercial radio and true facts are a bit boring. Useful government programs make poor conservative soundbites.

[fintstone]

Superman
I only know what I have seen from my personal experience working with teens, of course, and growing up very poor. Don't know if you misunderstood me, but the exception was not the "success story" or the program, rather the family on disability. I wouldn't know much about radio talk shows, please explain.

[fintstone]

Chris' story is a lot more "real life" than the caricature deadbeatwelfaremothers stories some of you guys are passing on from your mindless conservative talk show propaganda. Most minimum wage earners are not high school boysliving with mom and dad and supporting a car in an urban setting. Most minimum wage earners are rural heads of household.

Gosh, you seem to listen to a lot of conservative talk shows. Where do you find the time?

I had not heard that most minimum wage earners were "head of household." It does not seem plausible. Could you provide a reference?

And Fint, I wonder if a review of your 10:03 pm post would make you want to modify a term or two. The reason I ask, is that I could not have made my point any better than you did there.

No, seems we are in agreement,

[911ctS]

Originally posted by fintstone
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lendaddy
"This top 1% of "wage earners" who pay 37.4% of income taxes, I wonder what percent of the nation's wealth they control."

I am struggling to figure out how this is any of your or my business????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, did you just say that?

It should be all of our business. Part of running an effective democracy is knowing the balance and distribution of wealth.

I know learning from history is a far off concept for some people but... If our country gets further twisted in to RICH and POOR classifications with no middle class then it will certainly change for the worse. We will just end up like other failed democracies over time. (as if the extremely wealthy really care though, they're all for here, now, and the all mighty dollar)
I agree with lendaddy. The government has no right to know specifically how much wealth I accumulate. If they tax my earnings when I receive them, they can extrapolate from there if they like. That is enough for their statistics. It is none of their business is I stuff it in my mattress and save it or spend it immediately...and they certainly should not be able base income taxes on whether I accumulate it or not..

O man, my bad, if lendaddy meant it that way, then I agree. The government should not know, specificaly who makes what, that seems as though it would belong to a communist country.

My opinion was stating that I think the government should know statisitcs on how the wealth is distributed throughout our population. Not so personal that they know exactly what each person makes. Im with you guys, if I stuff money in my walls and under my carpets they souldn't know about it.

[911ctS]

On the welfare issue...

4 of my friends are currently collecting welfare as we speak. Did you read that right ......FOUR and their all between 21 and 24 years old. They do not work nor are they looking for a job. Their objective is to nurse the welfare as long as it lasts. Meanwhile, their going to the bars, driving nice toyotas, and just livin it up... And you know why.......because they can. Our system allows that to happen.

I do believe their are people who greatly need welfare and I do very much want to help them, but damn, something has got to be reformed on this issue. Lets face it, welfare gets badly abused by those who don't really need it and this is what destroys it for the ones that do. Plus it makes people like me who pay taxes and get nothing from the govt. very pi$$ed off.

[pbs911]

And how much of the nation's tax burden should be shouldered by households earning minimum wage ($14,500 per year, gross)?

The same as everyone else since they enjoy the same benefits.

I have never seen any substantiated reason why the rich should pay more in taxes that the poor that does not take this country one step further to Marxism - "to each according to their needs, from each according to their means."

In my experience, the rich (I mean 7 figure incomes) don't pay as much in tax simply because they have money, not because they are not asked for the tax. Money buys good attorneys, CPAs and tax experts. If there's a loop hole the rich are equiped to find it. If the middle class threw their "Turbo Tax" computer program in the trash and invested in a good tax person they would get alot more of a return. In general, the poor remain poor because of their ignorance. It doesn't matter how much the rich pay in taxes to "better" these people. The majority of the poor will continue to remain in poverty as will their offspring. Those who will make it out don't do it because the rich paid more taxes - they work at it. Geez, the poor of the world should just go to night school after their day shift at Walmat and quit crying about their sense of entitlement.

For those in the middle class, please list all the consistent charitable contributions you make to the poor. Saying the rich should be taxed more is easy. Let's here from people who actually put their hard earned wages where their mouth is and voluntarily give it away.

[CamB]

911ctS - how is it they can do this on welfare living where they are? How much actually is the welfare check? Here in NZ, I'm pretty sure our equivalent is slightly lower than the minimum wage - given that I earn many times that and only have a student wife to support, sometimes I wonder how people with a modest family on a benefit can exist.

It would certainly suck.

People often tend to focus on the "rich" beneficiaries - in NZ there was the well publicised discovery that the top beneficiary earned slightly over NZ$60k per year (average household income is only in the early 50s). But it was a special case - lots of children/dependants. Yes, the system is flawed when someone can do that. Yes, the system is flawed when you have second generation beneficiaries dependant in government handouts.

But no system is going to be perfect, and the costs of a perfect welfare system would outweigh the enforcement/compliance cost IMO. The tax system is kinda similar.

I guess what I am saying is that focusing on specific outcomes is not going to win any battles here. The average outcome, or some percentile, is a better focus. Personally, I am happy to pay a level of taxes which sees vast majority (lets call it 90%) above the poverty line.

Final thought - New Zealand has no people begging for money openly. I would be asked for money on the street extremely infrequently. For that reason, I think our welfare system works.