$249,999.00 Is the Goal

[Jon]

LOL! You people make me laugh. So much assuming.

btw, jsanders...it almost sounds like you're advocating for even higher taxes because that means people will work less therefore creating jobs for others.

Wrong. I'm saying that every economical argument has a good and a bad side. I don't even mind higher tax rates, as long as the money earned is being spent wisely. This administration is not spending money wisely. They are literally taking from the wealthy to give to the poor. I would pay 40% of my income if I knew it was going to actually pay off the debt. This administration is not paying off the debt. They are subsidizing the lives of the poor, hoping that controlling the country will lead to an economical boom that will automatically reduce the debt. It's a ridiculous method of debt reduction. If you want to reduce the debt, PAY IT OFF. If you're going to earn more tax revenue, SPEND IT ON THE DEBT. Don't spend our income taxes on programs that only benefit those who don't even work to benefit themselves. Those people aren't even affected by the size of the debt nor the state of the economy. They get their government handouts no matter how piss poor things are. Those of us who actually work are affected by the economy, and we're the ones who have to pay off the debt. Yet all of our income taxes levied are going to benefit others.

FYI ....65% of the people on welfare now that are not working... are children.

1. I don't believe you. I need proof.

2. There are a lot of disclaimers in that simple sentence. 65% of people on welfare THAT ARE NOT WORKING are children. So...there are people on welfare who ARE working? Why?

3. Finally, I don't care if they ARE children. Not that I'd let starving children die, but if you get the PARENTS off welfare, the kids come off, too. What a horrible argument you've made.

 

[editec]

People who would rather not work to avoid taxes they feel are unfair are more than welcome to do so.

I definitely think that the person who claimed that they would do that is totally full of beans, but if some of you take comfort in thinking such an obviously nonsensical story is true, well...

Fine. We're all pretty used to having to deal with your childish blather by now.

 

[necritan]

People who would rather not work to avoid taxes they feel are unfair are more than welcome to do so.

I definitely think that the person who claimed that they would do that is totally full of beans, but if some of you take comfort in thinking such an obviously nonsensical story is true, well...

Fine. We're all pretty used to having to deal with your childish blather by now.

Regardless of the realism of the story.....the "felt" unfairness of higher taxes for higher wage earners is real....and legit.

 

[Ravi]

The numbers make sense.

If you're an idiot, they do. Again, you aren't listening. Not only are they raising the tax rates, but they are also phasing out deductions. This will raise taxes on the "rich" more than the higher tax rates will. And, as I said, depending on the phase out limits, it may even end up raising taxes on those below the $250,000 threshold.

I think the deductions issue is a separate matter, also full of inequities. For instance, if you itemize for every dollar you donate to charity you can write of .35. If you don't you can only write of .15. If the deduction limit is lowered, the itemizer would only be able to write off .28 for every dollar donated while the nonitemizer would still be only getting .15.

 

[Care4all]

Wrong. I'm saying that every economical argument has a good and a bad side. I don't even mind higher tax rates, as long as the money earned is being spent wisely. This administration is not spending money wisely. They are literally taking from the wealthy to give to the poor. I would pay 40% of my income if I knew it was going to actually pay off the debt. This administration is not paying off the debt. They are subsidizing the lives of the poor, hoping that controlling the country will lead to an economical boom that will automatically reduce the debt. It's a ridiculous method of debt reduction. If you want to reduce the debt, PAY IT OFF. If you're going to earn more tax revenue, SPEND IT ON THE DEBT. Don't spend our income taxes on programs that only benefit those who don't even work to benefit themselves. Those people aren't even affected by the size of the debt nor the state of the economy. They get their government handouts no matter how piss poor things are. Those of us who actually work are affected by the economy, and we're the ones who have to pay off the debt. Yet all of our income taxes levied are going to benefit others.

FYI ....65% of the people on welfare now that are not working... are children.

1. I don't believe you. I need proof.

2. There are a lot of disclaimers in that simple sentence. 65% of people on welfare THAT ARE NOT WORKING are children. So...there are people on welfare who ARE working? Why?

3. Finally, I don't care if they ARE children. Not that I'd let starving children die, but if you get the PARENTS off welfare, the kids come off, too. What a horrible argument you've made.

since Newt Gingrich/Clinton welfare reform, you have to work, at least part time, or you have to be in a work training/skill course, to draw welfare with very few exceptions....

Those exception would include just delivering a child....

The majority of people on welfare when examining adults are female vs male, and the majority of those are single/divorced females with children.

They draw money for each child they have....along with money for themselves if they are below the poverty level.

just by this alone, it puts more than the majority of those receiving welfare who are not working, children.

I read these statistics a while back....i will try to find a link for you...but in the meantime, here's something else on Poverty in the USA and who is affected the most, that also supports some of what i have said above....

Childstats.gov - America's Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2008 - Economic Circumstances

i am still searching for the other stats to support my original statement Jsanders...

Care

I am still searching for the chart i had read last year but: This might help answer your question of why working people are on welfare:

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
In 1996, after pledging to “end welfare as we know it,” then-President Clinton and Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, known as the welfare reform law. The law replaced the entitlement to cash assistance, known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant program.

TANF was created to reduce welfare dependency in two ways. First, by requiring recipients to work in order to receive cash assistance, and second, by limiting how long a family can receive welfare. Families with dependent children or pregnant women with an income below a percent of the federal poverty line (states choose the eligibility level) receive monthly cash assistance. Other changes to the program made in 1996 included:

Entitlements: Under AFDC, states received federal funds as an entitlement, which meant that every family who was eligible for assistance received assistance. When the program was changed to a block grant program, families in need were no longer guaranteed assistance. Now, since TANF money is “block granted” to the states, each state is allowed to design and implement its own TANF program and to set benefit levels to determine who receives assistance.

Funding amounts: The federal government provides states with a total of $16.5 billion annually (not adjusted for inflation) to administer their TANF programs. The amount of money each state receives is based on how much federal welfare spending per state in the mid-1990s under AFDC. Each state is also required to spend at least 75 percent of the amount it spent on welfare programs in fiscal year 1994. This state contribution is called Maintenance of Effort (MOE).

Time limits: Congress set a 60-month (5-year) time limit on TANF benefits, although some states have taken advantage of the flexibility to shorten or extend this period.

Work Requirements: TANF includes work requirements of 30 hours for individuals with children over 6 and a 20-hour requirement for those with children under 6. TANF recipients may enroll in job training and educational programs for up to a year in some states if they continue to meet full work requirements.

Sanctions: Additionally, federal law allows TANF recipients to be sanctioned, meaning that part or all of their TANF benefits can be cut if they are considered to be in violation with program requirements. Sanctions can result in losing TANF eligibility permanently.

Child Care: The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) provides funds for states to assist low-income families with child care needs. Congress decides on mandatory funding levels for CCDBG in TANF legislation.


According to the Brookings Institution, the number of people receiving welfare has declined more than 50 percent since the enactment of TANF in 1996. This, however, is not because people are no longer living in poverty. A study by the Urban Institute illustrates that more than 50 percent of those who have left welfare and are working earn wages below the federal poverty line. Although many welfare recipients have found work, often, they are low-wage jobs that provide no benefits. With the economic recession and rise in unemployment, many parents who moved from welfare to work have found themselves laid off, ineligible for unemployment compensation, and are facing the five-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits.

http://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=349

Here some more info, to support what I stated:

The proportion of low-income single-parent families with an employed parent has increased significantly. In 2002, the proportion of children in low-income single-parent families with an employed parent was 61 percent, an increase of 5 percentage points from 1997. Full-time employment, and full-time employment with employer-provided health insurance, did not significantly increase in this group between 1997 and 2002.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/900980_welfarereform.pdf

16 billion in Federal Welfare in 2003 is NOT alot of money jsanders.... Welfare (TANF) is one of the smallest issues we have with spending at this point, imo.

 

[Care4all]

The numbers make sense.

If you're an idiot, they do. Again, you aren't listening. Not only are they raising the tax rates, but they are also phasing out deductions. This will raise taxes on the "rich" more than the higher tax rates will. And, as I said, depending on the phase out limits, it may even end up raising taxes on those below the $250,000 threshold.

I think the deductions issue is a separate matter, also full of inequities. For instance, if you itemize for every dollar you donate to charity you can write of .35. If you don't you can only write of .15. If the deduction limit is lowered, the itemizer would only be able to write off .28 for every dollar donated while the nonitemizer would still be only getting .15.

DARN GOOD point Rav!!!

 

[American Horse]

If you're an idiot, they do. Again, you aren't listening. Not only are they raising the tax rates, but they are also phasing out deductions. This will raise taxes on the "rich" more than the higher tax rates will. And, as I said, depending on the phase out limits, it may even end up raising taxes on those below the $250,000 threshold.

I think the deductions issue is a separate matter, also full of inequities. For instance, if you itemize for every dollar you donate to charity you can write off .35. If you don't you can only write of .15.If the deduction limit is lowered, the itemizer would only be able to write off .28 for every d ollar donated while the nonitemizer would still be only getting .15.

DARN GOOD point Rav!!!

Wait a minute Ravi....Aren't those fractional write-offs you mentioned above (.35, .15, .28) just marginal tax rates which would theoretically be applied to income before and after deductions are taken for the purpose of reducing taxable income? If that is the case, then for the non-itemizer there may have actually been no charitable giving at all, which he or she is still getting a deduction for.

Here is some information on charitable giving and taxation: Right Way to Extend Charitable Deductions to Nonitemizers, The

scroll down to the third pragraph of text to "Currently, the price of giving away a dollar is less than a dollar only to those who itemize on their tax returns."

 

[editec]

People who would rather not work to avoid taxes they feel are unfair are more than welcome to do so.

I definitely think that the person who claimed that they would do that is totally full of beans, but if some of you take comfort in thinking such an obviously nonsensical story is true, well...

Fine. We're all pretty used to having to deal with your childish blather by now.

Regardless of the realism of the story.....the "felt" unfairness of higher taxes for higher wage earners is real....and legit.

Yes, that is true.

Some people definitely do feel that a progressive system of taxation is unfair.

And in order to show us their ire, they're more than willing to lie to make their points understood.

You don't find that somewhat telling about who these people are, and what their sense of ethics really are all about , though, do you?

And the fact that these people come at this argument willing to lie their asses off and demand that we believe their shit is shinola I find rather mystifying, to be honest.

The faux outrage of the rich and the tools who buy into their lying bullshit does not much impress me, amigo.

 

[Jon]

Geez editec, it seems like you hate the rich just as much as bobo does. Why? They earned their money just like you did.

And Ravi, I'm not sure what your point was, at all. My point is that if deductions are phased out, some people will not be able to take any of the deductions (or will only be able to take partial deductions, it just depends on the income phase out levels they put into place). If that's the case, it won't matter what marginal tax rate they are in, they will still have a higher tax base, and thus, a higher tax burden. This may also apply to people under the $250,000, and that would be typical of a politician like Obama. "I'm not going to raise your taxes," meanwhile he lowers your deductions.

 

[WillowTree]

People who would rather not work to avoid taxes they feel are unfair are more than welcome to do so.

I definitely think that the person who claimed that they would do that is totally full of beans, but if some of you take comfort in thinking such an obviously nonsensical story is true, well...

Fine. We're all pretty used to having to deal with your childish blather by now.

Regardless of the realism of the story.....the "felt" unfairness of higher taxes for higher wage earners is real....and legit.

Yes, that is true.

Some people definitely do feel that a progressive system of taxation is unfair.

And in order to show us their ire, they're more than willing to lie to make their points understood.

You don't find that somewhat telling about who these people are, and what their sense of ethics really are all about , though, do you?

And the fact that these people come at this argument willing to lie their asses off and demand that we believe their shit is shinola I find rather mystifying, to be honest.

The faux outrage of the rich and the tools who buy into their lying bullshit does not much impress me, amigo.

and yet you willingly swallow every single solitary lie the person you elected tells you.. how damn funny is that??

 

[editec]

Geez editec, it seems like you hate the rich just as much as bobo does. Why?

I've probably known and like far more wealthy people than you'll ever know, lad.

They earned their money just like you did.

Yes, some of them did. And as we are now discovering, many did not.

Do please stop trying to turn my arguments from something nuanced into something dumb, would you?

Of course if you do that, you might not have any arguments to field when I post, would you?

Far better for people without an counter argument to attack the messenger than his message, eh?

 

[DiveCon]

Geez editec, it seems like you hate the rich just as much as bobo does. Why?

I've probably known and like far more wealthy people than you'll ever know, lad.

They earned their money just like you did.

Yes, some of them did. And as we are now discovering, many did not.

Do please stop trying to turn my arguments from something nuanced into something dumb, would you?

Of course if you do that, you might not have any arguments to field when I post, would you?

Far better for people without an counter argument to attack the messenger than his message, eh?

ya know, nuanced is just another way to explain a dumb statement

 

[Jon]

I've probably known and like far more wealthy people than you'll ever know, lad.

What a pointless and ignorant comment. You know nothing about me, nor do you have any reason to make such a statement. I guess you should read your own comments about attacking the messenger, hypocrite.

Yes, some of them did. And as we are now discovering, many did not.

So you believe in punishing the lot of them to get back at those that abused the system? Nice.

Do please stop trying to turn my arguments from something nuanced into something dumb, would you?

Oh, the irony.