Okay hack away about tax income

Do some people rely on safety nets too much and become unmotivated to work? Definitely.
Do some people legit need it? Definitely.
Is the system perfect? Definitely not.
The best way to solve this problem is to bring them out of poverty. Simply cutting what a majority of them are getting, I fail to see how that would solve the problem. They wouldn't just magically be able to go find a job now. It really is not that easy, especially for people born and raised in really bad circumstances. It's a huge, deep-rooted problem that creates and maintains a vicious cycle. Simply saying they're all just lazy is completely unproductive.
 
sturg33 said:
Explain why it is different
Click to expand...

I want people to be able to practice their religion without the government telling them what to preach. Even if I am not a religious person. I want the government to help establish and protect that.

I want the government to help establish a progressive tax policy where the rich can't screw the poor and middle class into lawlessness and civil war but I don't want the government telling me how to spend what money I have after taxes.

I don't mind the government taking my money via taxes and using it for social welfare programs. Yodon't want it period. There's where we differ.

I would prefer there be an agency to help crack down on welfare abuse but you want to eliminate it altogether. And as Dalyn said I would rather the people that need it get it even if it means a few bad apples are defrauding the system.
 
yeezus said:
Do some people rely on safety nets too much and become unmotivated to work? Definitely.
Do some people legit need it? Definitely.
Is the system perfect? Definitely not.
The best way to solve this problem is to bring them out of poverty. Simply cutting what a majority of them are getting, I fail to see how that would solve the problem. They wouldn't just magically be able to go find a job now. It really is not that easy, especially for people born and raised in really bad circumstances. It's a huge, deep-rooted problem that creates and maintains a vicious cycle. Simply saying they're all just lazy is completely unproductive.
Click to expand...

So what point is the cutoff? I believe today it is 99 weeks? Is it ok to cut them off then? Or should we extend to forever? Serious question...
 
sturg33 said:
So what point is the cutoff? I believe today it is 99 weeks? Is it ok to cut them off then? Or should we extend to forever? Serious question...
Click to expand...

I don't know, that's for people with far more intelligence than me to decide.
 
Heywood said:
I want people to be able to practice their religion without the government telling them what to preach. Even if I am not a religious person. I want the government to help establish and protect that.

I want the government to help establish a progressive tax policy where the rich can't screw the poor and middle class into lawlessness and civil war but I don't want the government telling me how to spend what money I have after taxes.

I don't mind the government taking my money via taxes and using it for social welfare programs. Yodon't want it period. There's where we differ.

I would prefer there be an agency to help crack down on welfare abuse but you want to eliminate it altogether. And as Dalyn said I would rather the people that need it get it even if it means a few bad apples are defrauding the system.
Click to expand...

So if you "want" that... then why you wouldn't you "want" it privately? It's the same principle. That the rich should pay a greater share for the same services because they can afford it.
 
sturg33 said:
So if you "want" that... then why you wouldn't you "want" it privately? It's the same principle. That the rich should pay a greater share for the same services because they can afford it.
Click to expand...

And because they have the power and ability to pay themselves almost endless amount of money while cutting jobs and hurting those below them, just because they've figured out a way to do so. And because their money is often times sitting dead and not moving around, which really hurts the economy as a whole. And because they're far more likely to move their money out of the country, thus hurting the economy even more.

There's that stat of what the average CEO made vs. their lower employees in the 80s compared to now, and it is disturbing. Why should they be making exponential amounts more? Because they figured out a way to do so? Because they're actually that much more valuable? How is that good for anyone but them?
 
sturg33 said:
So, for example... I went to Vegas with 3 friends a few weeks back.

One of the 4 makes over $300K a year... I makes less than half of that. The other two are in grad school and make nothing.

So theoretically, we should have paid for the hotel differently? With me and my friend paying for the whole bill, although, he would pay more than I would.

Are the progressive income tax in favor of this? And if it is not an apt comparison, please explain specifically why
Click to expand...

No, though if I went with you I would've offered to pay for the two in grad school. Taxes cover a percentage of your income. I don't think that percentage should increase with your income, but I definitely don't think your buddy making 300K should give the government the exact same amount of money as your buddy in grad school. The government provides a system the individual can utilize to survive. There is a fee involved with utilizing that system (that is in turn used to help that system survive). If you don't want to pay the fee, don't use the system.
 
sturg33 said:
But isn't cutting them off at 99 weeks just as heartless as cutting them off at 52 weeks? If so, wouldn't you favor extending benefits indefinitely?
Click to expand...

99 weeks is probably enough time to find a job for a majority of people.
 
yeezus said:
And because they have the power and ability to pay themselves almost endless amount of money while cutting jobs and hurting those below them, just because they've figured out a way to do so. And because their money is often times sitting dead and not moving around, which really hurts the economy as a whole. And because they're far more likely to move their money out of the country, thus hurting the economy even more.

There's that stat of what the average CEO made vs. their lower employees in the 80s compared to now, and it is disturbing. Why should they be making exponential amounts more? Because they figured out a way to do so? Because they're actually that much more valuable? How is that good for anyone but them?
Click to expand...

It sounds like you support wage caps?
 
sturg33 said:
So if you "want" that... then why you wouldn't you "want" it privately? It's the same principle. That the rich should pay a greater share for the same services because they can afford it.
Click to expand...

I want gay people to marry. I am not gay. I want the government to establish and protect that right for gays. Does that mean I'm delusional for allowing the government to take my tax money to help establish that right for something I myself do not do?
 
sturg33 said:
It sounds like you support wage caps?
Click to expand...

Nope, not necessarily.
Wage caps in relation to employees in your company? Ok, I could listen to that. CEOs have companies that lose money, lay-off a bunch of people, and their bonus goes up. Lol, no. That is absurd.
 
Dalyn said:
No, though if I went with you I would've offered to pay for the two in grad school. Taxes cover a percentage of your income. I don't think that percentage should increase with your income, but I definitely don't think your buddy making 300K should give the government the exact same amount of money as your buddy in grad school. The government provides a system the individual can utilize to survive. There is a fee involved with utilizing that system (that is in turn used to help that system survive). If you don't want to pay the fee, don't use the system.
Click to expand...

That's fine... and for the record, we did subsidize the other two by basically paying for all dinners and shows. But that's more of a kindness thing, not something I principally believe in.

I also agree with you - it should be a set % at the very least... not progressive like it is today.
 
Dalyn said:
No, though if I went with you I would've offered to pay for the two in grad school. Taxes cover a percentage of your income. I don't think that percentage should increase with your income, but I definitely don't think your buddy making 300K should give the government the exact same amount of money as your buddy in grad school. The government provides a system the individual can utilize to survive. There is a fee involved with utilizing that system (that is in turn used to help that system survive). If you don't want to pay the fee, don't use the system.
Click to expand...

You would pay for your friends to go to Vegas?

Can we be friends?
 
Heywood said:
I want gay people to marry. I am not gay. I want the government to establish and protect that right for gays. Does that mean I'm delusional for allowing the government to take my tax money to help establish that right for something I myself do not do?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point.
 
yeezus said:
Nope, not necessarily.
Wage caps in relation to employees in your company? Ok, I could listen to that. CEOs have companies that lose money, lay-off a bunch of people, and their bonus goes up. Lol, no. That is absurd.
Click to expand...

Why is what a CEO of a private business makes your concern? It's not. You shouldn't be able to dictate what they pay themselves or their employees.

As well as we shouldn't be using any corporate welfare to subsidize them either
 
sturg33 said:
You're missing the point.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point that dalyn myself and yeezus sort of have made the last 2 pages of this thread.

And the fact you still equivocate money spent after taxes with a progressive income tax system is silly.
 
sturg33 said:
That's fine... and for the record, we did subsidize the other two by basically paying for all dinners and shows. But that's more of a kindness thing, not something I principally believe in.

I also agree with you - it should be a set % at the very least... not progressive like it is today.
Click to expand...

You really have to look at it like this - By getting a job, you're investing in yourself through the government. Their cut (cause all middle men take cuts) is dependent on your ROI. If you get more back on your investment than your buddy (make more money), their cut is going to reflect that difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top