Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Wow, you really need to go back to Economics 101.
|
Actually, I've done pretty well for myself by ensuring that I DO understand economics.
That I also understand the excessive burden put on the working poor, simply makes me one of those
'trolls' that some of those on the right just love to bandy about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Any flat sales tax represents a higher percentage of income to those with less money, BUT ONLY IF THEY PURCHASE THE SAME AMOUNT OF GOODS AND SERVICES. They can't and they don't, it is simply a matter of lifestyle. Is your argument that "the poor" "deserve" the same lifestyle as "the rich"? If so, YOU ARE A SOCIALIST!!!. Do you subscribe to the theory that you can make the poor rich by making the rich poorer? That's a fallacy. Remember, "the rich" are rich for a reason---
|
Ummm, your attempt at diversion to a subject that isn't even being discussed (progressive vs. flat vs. fair tax) is simply a red herring.
My point that the poor already pay a higher % of their income to 'taxes' is not only true...but I even provided proof of it.
It's always easy to refute those who focus solely on 'personal income tax,' because they have it in their heads that it's the only tax that applies/matters.
It's not.
Local/state sales tax, taxes on fuel, SS/Medicare, ETC. are also paid by the working poor....reducing their actual income even further.
Are you aware that a family of 4 making around $50K in
earned income (not investment income, which is treated much differently) after most deductions, actually pay little, if any...personal income tax?
Recognizing of course, they are also paying those 'other' taxes, albeit it is a much smaller % of their actual income.
Are those the
'sucking on the government teat' types you're referring to...and want to ensure they start paying
'their fair share?'
Or do you prefer to hang on to that stereotype of the welfare queen (typically a minority, with a large number of children) getting food stamps and other 'welfare' ....to fuel your prejudice?
Sure, those types do exist. But all too many focus solely on that small group to help stoke the flames of their outrage, anger and prejudice....when the actual facts are much different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
They may have been born into money: In that case I agree with you, they don't "deserve" that any more than anyone "deserves" a government handout. Other than a few million that we would like to hand down to our kids, I wouldn't object to a heavy tax on anything over that. Better yet, I would like to see a mandatory contribution to legitimate charities.
They may have been "lucky". There are 2 types of luck. The first is the guy who left his garbage can lid at the curb, so flung it back to his house---hence inventing the Frisbee. Good for him. The second is the guy who buys a fistful of lottery tickets instead of milk for his baby. No sympathy there, I would make him give 80% of the winnings to a children's and orphan's fund.
|
So, it sounds like you are all for 'Big Brother' and would like to dictate how others live?
I thought you righties were repulsed about that kind of thing?
Silly me, I guess that only applies to when it's you...not the OTHER person.
While I too believe it is sickening that someone would buy lottery tickets instead of food for their family, without absolute and total control of the populace...how else would it be stopped?
Who/what exactly, are going to be the person/entity that gets to make the decision on whether or not your lifestyle fits with what is proper?
Would you be OK if it were me making that determination?
Quote:
|
But the overwhelming majority EARNED it, through hard work, reasonably frugal lifestyle, and wise savings and investments. They are the one's who "deserve" what they have, and the concept of taking it away to give it to a bunch of do-nothing couch sitters is ridiculous.
|
Once again, you're back to that stereotype that you're myopically focused on...to fuel your outrage.
Quote:
|
Your second post is economically idiotic. If a "greedy company" is paying lower wages than it's competitors, they will have no workers.
|
Sorry Bubba, but it is YOU...who are obviously economically stupid.
Or didn't you understand what I said above?
Even someone making $15 an hour (almost twice the minimum wage), are still be eligible for public assistance.
And yet, you have also totally avoided my point about how '
multi-billion dollar a year in profit' companies have multitudes of employees who qualify for public assistance.
Apparently, you have no qualms of subsidizing these companies (who can certainly afford to raise their employees past the need of public assistance, paid for by yours and my taxes)...but would rather focus on just individuals?
The High Public Cost of Low Wages | Center for Labor Research and Education
Quote:
Low Wages Cost U.S. Taxpayers $152.8 Billion Each Year in Public Support for Working Families.
|
What in your past has made you so bitter, angry and prejudiced against the working poor?
Quote:
|
If the general economy orchestrated by Obama supports low wages for medium income workers across the board, well, "elections have consequences". I also strongly object to the term "haughty/hatred", I have no problem helping the WORKING POOR, I have a problem supporting the LAZY POOR, THE CRIMINAL POOR, THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT POOR, and the MOTHER OF 8 CHILDREN BY 8 DIFFERENT FATHERS POOR. Choices should have consequences too. Unfortunately, it seems the concept of individual accountability is rapidly fading from the American scene
|
AHA!!
I guess I should have noticed this first, before I posted my comments above.
I obviously hit the nail on the head, when I guessed what was fueling your prejudice and hatred.
Thanks for making me look so prescient.
Just a thought, but might I be so presumptuous as to suggest you do a little more research before coming on here screaming about subjects that you have little knowledge?
Jes saying.
CNM