The beauty of capitalism in pictures.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Sure, again people are self interested. Voting for politicians who support programs that benefit you is reflective of that.

But it's not comparable to compare some one struggling to get buy in the lower class voting for some help, to a millionaire trying to keep as much of their money as possible. There's a difference between self interest in getting by and surviving, providing necessities for your family etc. and being filthy rich and only concerned with how to get even richer.[/quote]

This is where it gets blurry though. Why should someone (regardless of how much wealth they may have amassed) be forced to provide necessities for the family that someone else made the choice to have? Please note, I'm not saying they should or shouldn't - individual situations may vary - it's a question of force.

If you cannot pay for your children, (A) you shouldn't have had them in the first place* and (B) you should give them up for adoption/make them wards of the state until you reach a point in your life where you are mature enough to take care of them - and you should be sterilized as a part of the process.

Now, I'm not talking about things like schooling or libraries. I'm talking about food, shelter, clothing - basic necessities. If you can't provide those for your children on a regular basis - without direct government assistance - you need to admit you're a failure as a parent and give the child a chance at a better life.

*While there are unforeseen circumstances in life, I am of the opinion one shouldn't have children until they've created a sizable savings account, have adequate health and life insurance and have a budgeted plan for paying for their child's bills and education. Hell, I don't even have children and I have a sizable life insurance policy. My wife could pay off the house and car and take a few years off work if I were to pass away tomorrow.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']1980 = 1800?
[/QUOTE]
1980 = 2009?

You're a peach and a gentleman, sir.

[quote name='camoor']Ah I see - so whether they are rich or poor, people should just pay the government whatever they feel is fair.

What color is the sky in candyland?[/QUOTE]

When someone is telling me that they feel they should be paying more into the government, I don't think it's unfair to ask why they're not already doing it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'](because, as we both know, company B is going to pass the cost of the Widget-Tax on to the consumer when they put a final price on the car).[/QUOTE]
Not entirely they aren't and probably much less than you think. This is covered in Economics 101, Bob. This specific instance.
[quote name='UncleBob']This is where it gets blurry though. Why should someone (regardless of how much wealth they may have amassed) be forced to provide necessities for the family that someone else made the choice to have? Please note, I'm not saying they should or shouldn't - individual situations may vary - it's a question of force.[/quote]
Because we have an American culture that has chosen to require that people have a minimum level of subsistence. Those that think it unfair can choose to take their wealth and leave at any time. They choose not to. One wonders what stops them?

What does stop them, bob?

This line of reasoning never made sense to me. The same person that turns themselves inside out talking about the American character and the American culture when it's time to defend it from "the other" never quite sees it the same way when that same culture rubs them the wrong way.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']This is where it gets blurry though. Why should someone (regardless of how much wealth they may have amassed) be forced to provide necessities for the family that someone else made the choice to have? Please note, I'm not saying they should or shouldn't - individual situations may vary - it's a question of force.

If you cannot pay for your children, (A) you shouldn't have had them in the first place* and (B) you should give them up for adoption/make them wards of the state until you reach a point in your life where you are mature enough to take care of them - and you should be sterilized as a part of the process.

Now, I'm not talking about things like schooling or libraries. I'm talking about food, shelter, clothing - basic necessities. If you can't provide those for your children on a regular basis - without direct government assistance - you need to admit you're a failure as a parent and give the child a chance at a better life.

*While there are unforeseen circumstances in life, I am of the opinion one shouldn't have children until they've created a sizable savings account, have adequate health and life insurance and have a budgeted plan for paying for their child's bills and education. Hell, I don't even have children and I have a sizable life insurance policy. My wife could pay off the house and car and take a few years off work if I were to pass away tomorrow.[/QUOTE]

Then move to China. The limits on child rearing their should be up your alley.

That's just the typical myopic view of most people on welfare being people popping out kids and working the system--when that's a small part of it.

Sure, it would be better if people waited until they had financial security before having kids. But the problem is a good chunk of the population could NEVER have children in that case as a good chunk of the population will never have financial security to the level you seem to require, as it's near impossible to save up enough working the low wage jobs the lower class get (if they're employed at all) to be able to ride out long layoffs when the economy tanks because of the greed of wealthy bankers etc.

There should be a safety net their for parents who had kids, worked hard to support them and then shit happened and they lost their job etc. If society is going to be worth living in, their should be a system to help such people ride out the storm. If not, it would be a pretty miserable place. Who wants to live in a dog eat dog kind of world, other than the nut jobs that want to live off the land and see other people as seldom as possible (i.e. the societal dropouts)?

Should more be done to limit abuse in the social support system? Abso-fucking-lutely. But that doesn't mean having a welfare system isn't a desireable and noble goal that should be supported. It just needs more oversight, more emphasis on getting people back on their feet vs. just giving handouts etc.
 
I love how the government takes everything at gunpoint.

You could always move to these countries (personal income tax included in parenthesis):

Belarus (12%)
Bulgaria (10%)
Kazakhstan (10%)
Monaco (0%)
Switzerland (0%-13.2%)
Saudi Arabia (residents pay 2.5% I'm sure you would be happy to convert to Islam to save a little change)
UAE (0%)
British Virgin Islands (0%)

Pick one and good riddance. Keep every cent for yourself and be happy.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
This line of reasoning never made sense to me. The same person that turns themselves inside out talking about the American character and the American culture when it's time to defend it from "the other" never quite sees it the same way when that same culture rubs them the wrong way.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, on that front the US kind of has split personalities.

On the one hand, we're the shining example of capitalism and consumerism. Which promotes a hedonistic world view of working hard to make as much money as possible and buy as much useless shit we don't need as possible.

On the other hand, we have a large welfare system, social security, medicare/medicade etc. etc. which is the polar opposite of the above.

Thus you have this clash and sharp ideological divide in this country, with conservatives backing the former more strongly than the latter. And liberals having the opposite stance. For the most part.

As for why the wealthy don't leave--they know that despite the taxes, welfare programs etc., they are still better off here in terms of their bottom line than they would be most anywhere else in the world.

So despite all their bitching, they're financial bottom line is still better off here.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Not entirely they aren't and probably much less than you think. This is covered in Economics 101, Bob. This specific instance.[/quote]

I suppose the money to buy the widget from Company A is grown on trees and doesn't come from consumers buying endproduct?

[quote name='depascal22']I love how the government takes everything at gunpoint.[/QUOTE]

How else is it done? Flowers and chocolate?

And, apparently, moving out of the country so you don't have to pay taxes is "gaming the system"...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As for why the wealthy don't leave--they know that despite the taxes, welfare programs etc., they are still better off here in terms of their bottom line than they would be most anywhere else in the world.

So despite all their bitching, they're financial bottom line is still better off here.[/QUOTE]

Agreed - for now.

But the "milk the rich" philosophy would make it so that it just makes more sense, financially and personally, for them to move (as states like New York are finding out). Once you run out these evil rich folks (who are going to take their money with them, of course), you're left with, at best, a bunch of hard working folks with no money and, at worst, a bunch of dead beats who were mooching off the rich - and no funds to support any of it.
 
No. Moving your money out of the country while you sit in a 10,000 sq ft mansion in Florida is gaming the system. Leaving the country and renouncing your citizenship is the noble thing to do if you don't plan on paying your fair share.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Agreed - for now.

But the "milk the rich" philosophy would make it so that it just makes more sense, financially and personally, for them to move (as states like New York are finding out). Once you run out these evil rich folks (who are going to take their money with them, of course), you're left with, at best, a bunch of hard working folks with no money and, at worst, a bunch of dead beats who were mooching off the rich - and no funds to support any of it.[/QUOTE]

That's just hyperbole. The tax system will never get that bad. The rich weren't fleeing in droves pre Reagan when the highest bracket was 70% or whatever it was.

And your hyperbole is silly as it ignores the middle class, and lower upper class, who aren't going anywhere in any case. As higher tax brackets would kick in above the current ones and hit people making 500,000, 1 milllion, 2, million etc.

The current brackets don't really need to change much other than maybe the highest 2 or 3 going up a tad. We just need more brackets for the uber wealthy rather than having the highest be $372K and up.


[quote name='depascal22']No. Moving your money out of the country while you sit in a 10,000 sq ft mansion in Florida is gaming the system. Leaving the country and renouncing your citizenship is the noble thing to do if you don't plan on paying your fair share.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. But they won't do it as it's more profitable to keep making money here and finding loopholes to get out of their full tax burden.
 
depascal: Would you care to define what one's "fair share" is? No one besides me is willing to. I'd love to hear your definition.
 
We've all been hinting at what a fair share is. It's impossible to put a specific number on it, but a fair share is having a graduated system like now as the more you make the larger percentage of your income you can play without having major negative impacts on your lifestyle.. Not to mention there's a difference between an uber rich person not being able to afford a 4th hours or 2nd Yacht on the opposite coast, and a lower to lower-middle class person struggling to pay the rent and utilities and keep their family fed and clothed.

A fair system has income based brackets like we have now, with more brackets in place for the wealth so someone making 372K isn't paying the same percentage as someone making 5 million.

The more you've been able to succeed in society, the greater % of the burden you should carry in advancing that society IMO.
 
Care to give me hard numbers to work with?

Should the top 1% pay 75% of their income?
Should the bottom 50% pay in 1% of their income?

And with all these accusations of the rich hiding money outside of the country, if we raise the taxes on these, evil, evil people - do you really think they're going to just give up and turn the money over?
 
First of all, dmaul has already suggested outlawing overseas tax havens.

The hard numbers don't matter because we aren't making the system. This isn't about a set number. You could set it at 75% and the rich would rightfully claim it's too high. You could set it at 25% and they would still bitch. This is about the rich's sense of entitlement to all the money and all the control that comes with it.

And please stop saying that the rich deserve all that money because it's theirs. Name one uber-rich person that is solely responsible for the millions and billions he has amassed. There's always thousands of employees and former co-workers that he or she has run rough shod over to get to the top.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Care to give me hard numbers to work with?

Should the top 1% pay 75% of their income?
Should the bottom 50% pay in 1% of their income?

And with all these accusations of the rich hiding money outside of the country, if we raise the taxes on these, evil, evil people - do you really think they're going to just give up and turn the money over?[/QUOTE]

It's graduated by income level, I don't care about the percentage breakdown.

But yeah, the highest bracket should probably pay at least 70-75% of their income (after entering that bracket) as part of the goal should be to lower incentive to take home so much pay so more money in the corporation can go down the ranks or into cash reserves for rainy days.

And yes, as depascal said, along with the increases, every known tax loophole should be closed. Including shuttling money overseas. Close the loophole and make such offenses serious federal crimes.

It's shouldn't be 70-75% of ALL their income, just all the income beyond entering that higher bracket. Say the 70% bracket is 2 million up--and the person made $3 million. The last $1 million gets taxed at 75%. The first $10,000 would get taxed at say 10% (if that's the lowest bracket) and so forth.
 
depascal: Are you the only one responsible for the property you've amassed? Does that mean everyone else should get to take whatever they want of your's and you can't say anything?

As for outlawing overseas tax havens - it'll never work.

There's a real good way to get a large chunk of US wealth invested in the Euro and such.
 
It's not money invested in the Euro, dude. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm not the only one responsible for the wealth I've amassed and I don't have a problem with paying taxes that go towards public schools and other public services.

You keep falsely equating that anyone can take anyone's money at anytime. It's such a false argument that I'm done discussing this with you. Peace.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']depascal: Are you the only one responsible for the property you've amassed? Does that mean everyone else should get to take whatever they want of your's and you can't say anything?
[/QUOTE]

Bob, if you want people to keep discussing things with you and not throw you on ignore, then you're going to have to stay aways from such absurd hyperbole.

Tax is far different than property that is bought with post-tax income. It's just a dumbass comparison that's little more than trolling.

And to the second part of the silly post, people can say things about tax rates. They can write their elected officials. They can vote for people who's tax plans they support. They can run for office and try and change things themselves. They can move to countries with cheaper rates (as liberals can move to more socialist countries if the mix here doesn't suit them).
 
[quote name='depascal22']It's not money invested in the Euro, dude. You have no idea what you're talking about.[/quote]

The point being, if you remove one form of "tax haven", those who would abuse such a thing will simply find another form.

I'm not the only one responsible for the wealth I've amassed and I don't have a problem with paying taxes that go towards public schools and other public services.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you're not paying enough! Pay more! ::stamps feet::

Don't like it? That's exactly what you're doing.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Bob, if you want people to keep discussing things with you and not throw you on ignore, then you're going to have to stay aways from such absurd hyperbole.[/quote]

When the best argument for raising taxes is "They have it, we want it." I really get at a loss as to what to counter with.

Tax is far different than property that is bought with post-tax income. It's just a dumbass comparison that's little more than trolling.
Click to expand...

So... spending money and acquiring things is great, but earning money is bad and should be taxed?

And to the second part of the silly post, people can say things about tax rates. They can write their elected officials. They can vote for people who's tax plans they support. They can run for office and try and change things themselves. They can move to countries with cheaper rates (as liberals can move to more socialist countries if the mix here doesn't suit them).
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with the voting plan. The bottom 50% will always out vote the top 1%. If we're going to expect the top 1% to support more of our government and more of our spending, then the top 1% should get more of a vote.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
When the best argument for raising taxes is "They have it, we want it." I really get at a loss as to what to counter with.
[/quote]

That's not the argument anyone is making. It's that the government has to be paid for, and a decent society should have a social support system to help out the disadvantaged (though it should be more regulated to prevent abuse and waste).

And that people who make more should share higher percentages of the burden as their income increases.

It's not take it from them and give it to me. It's we all have to pay into the system, and the burden should be distributed to give the lower and middle classes a better life and more opportunity to improve their lot in life so more of them can get better jobs and move into the higher tax brackets.

Not just let the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer.

So... spending money and acquiring things is great, but earning money is bad and should be taxed?
Click to expand...

Again, tax at some level is necessary to have any form of government. So yes their has to be taxes on income, property, purchases etc.

That's far different than taking someones property that they bought with their post-tax income. It's just stupid and nothing but troll flame bait to try to equate the two.


Here's the problem with the voting plan. The bottom 50% will always out vote the top 1%. If we're going to expect the top 1% to support more of our government and more of our spending, then the top 1% should get more of a vote.
Click to expand...

Come on you're not that dense. The wealthy have much more money to through around to politicians to influence their votes on bills, money to fund lobbying groups to defend their interest etc.

That more than balances out their smaller numbers in the polling booths. Politicians tell the voting lower and middle class what they want to hear, then often vote on issues according to who the wealthy who supported their campaign want done as it was their money that gave them the visibility to lie to all the rest of the voters.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That more than balances out their smaller numbers in the polling booths. Politicians tell the voting lower and middle class what they want to hear, then often vote on issues according to who the wealthy who supported their campaign want done as it was their money that gave them the visibility to lie to all the rest of the voters.[/QUOTE]

So... one way, the majority has tyranny over the minority. The other way, the politicians screw over those who voted them in.

...what exactly was the point you were making about voting?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Come on you're not that dense. The wealthy have much more money to through around to politicians to influence their votes on bills, money to fund lobbying groups to defend their interest etc.

That more than balances out their smaller numbers in the polling booths. Politicians tell the voting lower and middle class what they want to hear, then often vote on issues according to who the wealthy who supported their campaign want done as it was their money that gave them the visibility to lie to all the rest of the voters.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Like the woman who wrote to Obama harranging him about the healthcare options he is supporting and how they represent socialism and will ruin America. She then ends the letter by admonishing him to not touch her Medicare.

As much as I want to see the American middle class and poor get a fair deal, the fact of the matter is that many of them are their own worst enemy. Alot of money has been invested to keep them ignorant, and if you've ever seen a teabagger rally or Palin book signing it's easy to see the results.
 
The silliest thing is that UncleBob is against taxes, but the simpleton policy he's suggesting is to increase the tax burden on 99% of all Americans, which will immediately cause them to be smarter and more responsible.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']depascal: Would you care to define what one's "fair share" is? No one besides me is willing to. I'd love to hear your definition.[/QUOTE]

35%. No loopholes. No deductions. Death sentence for tax evasion. No penalties. No interest. Just death.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The silliest thing is that UncleBob is against taxes, but the simpleton policy he's suggesting is to increase the tax burden on 99% of all Americans, which will immediately cause them to be smarter and more responsible.[/QUOTE]

I'm not against taxes. I understand that we need a centralized government and that it needs to be funded. I'm against obsessive taxes and oppressive tax laws. 50% of Americans shouldn't have to foot 95% of the bill when the bill is this large.

I'm interested - when y'all go out to eat with friends (I'm assuming you do this) - how do y'all pay the bill? Now, I'm not talking birthdays or special occasions. I'm talking just going out with friends. Does everyone order what they want, then pay for what they ordered? Do you all order, then split the bill evenly between all parties? Do you show each other your W2's, calculate each individual's income and come up with who pays how much based on how much each of you make?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
...what exactly was the point you were making about voting?[/QUOTE]

That people can still say something. And you're cherry picking what I said, as I also said they could write their politicians (has more impact than a vote, though still limited), run for office themselves etc.

One person can't change things on their own, but they don't have no say in the matter as you implied earlier.

[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not against taxes. I understand that we need a centralized government and that it needs to be funded. I'm against obsessive taxes and oppressive tax laws. 50% of Americans shouldn't have to foot 95% of the bill when the bill is this large.
[/quote]

It's just the way it has to be to both function (without a huge reduction in government, social services etc.--which would make the US no longer the best place to live) and to be fair.

Those who make more money can afford to shoulder more of the burden. A 100% flat tax would never work for the reasons outlined earlier.

I'm interested - when y'all go out to eat with friends (I'm assuming you do this) - how do y'all pay the bill? Now, I'm not talking birthdays or special occasions. I'm talking just going out with friends. Does everyone order what they want, then pay for what they ordered? Do you all order, then split the bill evenly between all parties? Do you show each other your W2's, calculate each individual's income and come up with who pays how much based on how much each of you make?
Click to expand...

If I'm taking out friends I know have little money--say my friends who are still in grad school--I usually foot the bill since I make real money now and it's not a burden to my budget.

If it's with colleagues etc. who are all making real money we either split it equally or we each just pay for our own share.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's just the way it has to be to both function (without a huge reduction in government, social services etc.--which would make the US no longer the best place to live) and to be fair.[/QUOTE]

Is there *anyone* on this forum who honestly feels we couldn't have a huge reduction in spending by the Federal Government?

pieFY09.gif

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

I've no doubt that if we got our ends out of the two active wars we're in and cut down (and out) on spending propping up governments in Saudi Arabia and the like, cut down on R&D for military weapons, etc. We could probably cut that giant military slice in half. That alone would be cut the Federal Budget by about one quarter. Anyone against that?
 
Almost everyone can agree on cutting military activity/spending except the government itself. I'm not saying send out the troops with sticks and knives, but at least bring them home.
 
I think there could be huge cuts in defense, but it's always there out of both fear and the way our foreign policy works (which is a lot of fear too, I guess), not to mention the companies that keep it up because that money is going to them.
 
I'm not sure we could cut spending that much. I definitely think we should spend much less on the military (not wage wars of choice etc.). And there's a shit ton of waste that can be cut out if things are more tightly monitored, pork is limited etc.

But I don't think we should make cuts and simply lower taxes.

We should make cuts and spend the money more smartly in areas it's direly needed to keep the US competive in the global economy going forward in future generations. Health care. Fixing our crappy education system which keeps lagging further and further behind Europe and Asia, repairing crumbling infra structure, more grants for college students, etc. etc. etc.

I have little problem with the amount of spending. I have problems with how it's being spent and squandered.
 
Create enough violence around the world and you will need a ton of military spending. The foreign policy of the U.S. is a self-fulfilling prophecy of fear.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As crazy as it sounds, I would actually support a per-head tax. It would be the most fair way to divide the tax burden. I think if the lower income bracket were more in-tune with government spending, they'd be more interested in how the money is being spent. The best way to do this is by making them pay an EQUAL share. "Fair" is subjective. "Equal" is mathematically defined.[/QUOTE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQ_Ja02gTY
 
[quote name='mykevermin']People don't know fuck-all about government spending; it lies along party lines, as a recent Pew poll showed that over 60% of Republicans think Clinton increased the year-to-year budget deficit. Unfortunately, this means that Dick Cheney's maxim that "deficits don't matter" is correct. They don't matter, because people retrospectively look at history with glasses that are tinted by their political worldview. Even when they're contrary to what really happened by a WIDE margin.[/QUOTE]

That is astounding. Do you have a link to that poll? I'm interested.
 
They could just bring the Estate Tax back to pre Bush II levels. That would bring in hundreds of billions of dollars.
 
[quote name='Msut77']They could just bring the Estate Tax back to pre Bush II levels. That would bring in hundreds of billions of dollars.[/QUOTE]

And leave the dead nothing to give Charon? You monster!
 
[quote name='Msut77']They could just bring the Estate Tax back to pre Bush II levels. That would bring in hundreds of billions of dollars.[/QUOTE]
We should honor Reagan by setting the estate tax as he left it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not against taxes. I understand that we need a centralized government and that it needs to be funded. I'm against obsessive taxes and oppressive tax laws. 50% of Americans shouldn't have to foot 95% of the bill when the bill is this large.[/QUOTE]

This begs the question. How much money does the top 50% of Americans have?

All of the studies claiming those unfortunate rich people are paying more than their "fair share" assume those people are claiming all of their income. The higher up you go in pay, the better the perks. More of your meals are paid for. Your commuter car is more likely to be a company car. Business trips have stays at better hotels and with more booze and strippers. Your medical insurance will actually pay claims instead of denying them.

Every one of your tax changes willfully ignores this.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']All of the studies claiming those unfortunate rich people are paying more than their "fair share" assume those people are claiming all of their income. The higher up you go in pay, the better the perks. More of your meals are paid for. Your commuter car is more likely to be a company car. Business trips have stays at better hotels and with more booze and strippers. Your medical insurance will actually pay claims instead of denying them.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and there are thousands of Welfare Queens out there popping out babies like PEZ dispensers.

There are people cheating the system on both sides.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']This begs the question. How much money does the top 50% of Americans have?

All of the studies claiming those unfortunate rich people are paying more than their "fair share" assume those people are claiming all of their income. The higher up you go in pay, the better the perks. More of your meals are paid for. Your commuter car is more likely to be a company car. Business trips have stays at better hotels and with more booze and strippers. Your medical insurance will actually pay claims instead of denying them.

Every one of your tax changes willfully ignores this.[/QUOTE]

The really higher ups also get more or less free subsidized private jets flying this way and that.

Notice Bob also ignores any discussion of the rise in income inequality when discussing fairness.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']35%. No loopholes. No deductions. Death sentence for tax evasion. No penalties. No interest. Just death.[/QUOTE]

Death?

Then who would Obama appoint to cabinet positions?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']That is astounding. Do you have a link to that poll? I'm interested.[/QUOTE]

1) Wasn't Pew. Was a Krugman blog. My apologies:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/if-a-deficit-falls-in-the-forest/

2) The poll reflects on 1996 - now, by then the annual deficit was not in the balanced/surplus range it was in 1999-2000, but the annual deficit had been reduced significantly.

3) The Krugman blog cites these claims. The actual sources are
3a: http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/thinking.pdf (the paper that presents the poll data)
3b: http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-47.pdf (budget information - for deficit/surplus info, see the third column)

4) While I really want to make the strong claim that this means ideology trumps history, a simple refutation can throw a wrench into that: people often can't differentiate b/w "budget deficit" and "national debt" (especially when simply phrased as "deficit" or "debt"). Clinton increased the debt year over year (duh), but the deficit declined each year he was in office. People could simply be responding in a way that conflates those two terms. However, I'm not wholly convinced by that - primarily because there's no consistency from party to party in that area (if it was wholesale confusion of two words, we'd see parity in all party opinions on whether or not the deficit went up).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yeah, and there are thousands of Welfare Queens out there popping out babies like PEZ dispensers.

There are people cheating the system on both sides.[/QUOTE]

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Can you cite a specific example?

How much money is the average "queen" milking from the system? 1% of an executive's bonus a year? 10% of the cost of a suite during a weekend Vegas retreat in a decade?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Can you cite a specific example?[/QUOTE]

First result in a quick google search (although this is in reference to state-sponsored welfare:
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/11/police_flint-area_businesses_p.html

These cases are part of more than $18 million in statewide welfare fraud expected in the 2009 fiscal year.
Click to expand...

If an executive spends $1 Million of his/her own money a Vegas suite, then congrats for him/her.

If a Welfare Mom illegally cheats the system out of $1 of tax payer funds, then there's an issue.

Do you see the difference between the two?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If an executive spends $1 Million of his/her on a Vegas suite, then congrats for him.

If a Welfare Mom illegally cheats the system out of $1 of tax payer funds, then there's an issue.

Do you see the difference between the two?[/QUOTE]

If the executive takes that $1 Million off of his taxable income, he has cheated the gubmint that $1,000,000 times his tax rate.

If the tax rate is 35%, I'll say the difference is $349,999.
 
Do tell - and, of course, you won't be able to cite evidence, because I understand such a thing would be impossible to know for sure - Let's take the money paid into the government by the top twenty and bottom twenty percent of all individuals living in America. Now, let's take the money the government didn't get because they were "cheated" out of it by the top and bottom 20%.

Which one of those two groups still probably end up paying a higher percentage of the total Federal Income Tax?
 
Look what you've done Bob. You're being so damned obtuse you've made FoC post three consecutive times without any trace of wry humor or obscure references. You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top