Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is a perfect example of how CON$ have only programmed cliches to parrot no matter how unrelated they are to the subject at hand.Because the rich consume and therefore are taxed on only a very small part of their wealth, whereas the poor not only consume everything they earn, in many cases are in debt and therefore paying taxes on more than they earn!Thats one opinion. How can paying taxes on what you consume not be fair?
Where do you get the idea that just because someone works harder then the next through labor or ideas, they suddenly have an higher duty.
THEY DONT.................
This is a perfect example of how CON$ have only programmed cliches to parrot no matter how unrelated they are to the subject at hand.Because the rich consume and therefore are taxed on only a very small part of their wealth, whereas the poor not only consume everything they earn, in many cases are in debt and therefore paying taxes on more than they earn!
Where do you get the idea that just because someone works harder then the next through labor or ideas, they suddenly have an higher duty.
THEY DONT.................
What does a higher duty have to do with the fairness or unfairness consumption taxes?????
No, I said that a flat tax was the only fair tax, but that doesn't fit your programmed cliches so in typical CON$ervative fashion you just make up crap.This is a perfect example of how CON$ have only programmed cliches to parrot no matter how unrelated they are to the subject at hand.Where do you get the idea that just because someone works harder then the next through labor or ideas, they suddenly have an higher duty.
THEY DONT.................
What does a higher duty have to do with the fairness or unfairness consumption taxes?????
You are the one complaining that the rich need to pay more because they have it. HIGHER DUTY.
understand...........................
dude your team fucked it all up before nancy and harry got there.
What fool would wage two wars and not riase taxes?
One who wanted the country DEEP in debt for poltical reasons
Okay, you tell us how the U.S. gets to a better place by ending all of the following (all of which fall under my reference to alleviating the condition of the poor - note: poor being a relative term)
End the following:
1. Medicaid
2. Food stamps (and any other needs based assistance related to food)
3. Housing assistance
4. Heat/energy assistance
5. Public schools (i.e., education available regardless of your ability to pay)
6. the progressive income tax and all income based tax benefits (i.e. lower taxes based on lower income)
7. needs based higher education benefits (i.e. tuition assistance, etc.)
8. the minimum wage
9. the right to bargain collectively
10. cash assistance to the poor (i.e. 'welfare')
...and whatever I've left out...
All of the above are policies imposed by the GOVERNMENT to alleviate the condition of being (relatively) poor.
You call the above a 'trap', or whatever, and call it all a detriment?
Then show us how America gets better if all of that were gone.
[blather removed]
Should I repeat the question?
Does anyone want to help PC on this one?
So we are to believe that wealth going to the poor is wrong and socialist but the money going to more for the wealthy is the free market?
Well, Daveman, if you won't go for the confetti, the least you could do was play the Internationale, don't ya think?
A "free market" exists only in the text books within the ivy covered walls of the CON$ervative universities.The best way to reduce welfare is to not allow wealth to concentrate into too few hands
It's known as the free market!
Glad you've come to your senses.
Better late than never.
In the real world there is only MONOPOLY.
See? SEE?! That PROVES the Founding Fathers wanted us to be socialist!!It's known as the free market!
Glad you've come to your senses.
Better late than never.
Free markets almost never work.
When have we had a free market in history? Reviewing Hamilton's call for the constitution, he discussed in depth how taxes were collected from trade in a variety of republics. Dating back through history. So when have we had a truly free market?
The U.S. has many policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor.
They happen to be the policies conservatism most adamantly objects to.
That was my point.
Your point is at the top of your noggin.
"... policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."
Liberal policies are designed to trap the poor and keep them in welfare...
The following may be over your head, so let me know where you need elucidation:
There is no way out of the Poverty Trap- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!
a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.
b. but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.) The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap
Now, unless you take the position that welfare is good, and provides a respectable life choice, you must feel really, really dumb for saying:
"...The U.S. has many policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."
Wise up. Libs want to keep folks poor and reliant on them....so they think and vote the way you do.
Okay, you tell us how the U.S. gets to a better place by ending all of the following (all of which fall under my reference to alleviating the condition of the poor - note: poor being a relative term)
End the following:
1. Medicaid
2. Food stamps (and any other needs based assistance related to food)
3. Housing assistance
4. Heat/energy assistance
5. Public schools (i.e., education available regardless of your ability to pay)
6. the progressive income tax and all income based tax benefits (i.e. lower taxes based on lower income)
7. needs based higher education benefits (i.e. tuition assistance, etc.)
8. the minimum wage
9. the right to bargain collectively
10. cash assistance to the poor (i.e. 'welfare')
...and whatever I've left out...
All of the above are policies imposed by the GOVERNMENT to alleviate the condition of being (relatively) poor.
You call the above a 'trap', or whatever, and call it all a detriment?
Then show us how America gets better if all of that were gone.
Your point is at the top of your noggin.
"... policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."
Liberal policies are designed to trap the poor and keep them in welfare...
The following may be over your head, so let me know where you need elucidation:
There is no way out of the Poverty Trap- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!
a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.
b. but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.) The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap
Now, unless you take the position that welfare is good, and provides a respectable life choice, you must feel really, really dumb for saying:
"...The U.S. has many policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."
Wise up. Libs want to keep folks poor and reliant on them....so they think and vote the way you do.
Okay, you tell us how the U.S. gets to a better place by ending all of the following (all of which fall under my reference to alleviating the condition of the poor - note: poor being a relative term)
End the following:
1. Medicaid
2. Food stamps (and any other needs based assistance related to food)
3. Housing assistance
4. Heat/energy assistance
5. Public schools (i.e., education available regardless of your ability to pay)
6. the progressive income tax and all income based tax benefits (i.e. lower taxes based on lower income)
7. needs based higher education benefits (i.e. tuition assistance, etc.)
8. the minimum wage
9. the right to bargain collectively
10. cash assistance to the poor (i.e. 'welfare')
...and whatever I've left out...
All of the above are policies imposed by the GOVERNMENT to alleviate the condition of being (relatively) poor.
You call the above a 'trap', or whatever, and call it all a detriment?
Then show us how America gets better if all of that were gone.
We have all that AND record Poverty.
Amazing
Where is your example in history of what you claim will come to pass under unfettered markets?
This is a perfect example of how CON$ have only programmed cliches to parrot no matter how unrelated they are to the subject at hand.Because the rich consume and therefore are taxed on only a very small part of their wealth, whereas the poor not only consume everything they earn, in many cases are in debt and therefore paying taxes on more than they earn!
Where do you get the idea that just because someone works harder then the next through labor or ideas, they suddenly have an higher duty.
THEY DONT.................
What does a higher duty have to do with the fairness or unfairness consumption taxes?????
So you're saying it's just like leftism.Do you know why you cant produce a time in history when it worked?
Its because it doesnt
[blather removed]
Should I repeat the question?
Does anyone want to help PC on this one?
You've shown no ability to comprehend the material that I've provided...
...instead, you change the subject and feel that that is a winning strategy.
Wrong.
" ...fall under my reference to alleviating the condition of the poor - note: poor being a relative term)"
Had you the most rudimentary understanding, comprehension, you would have realilzed that I eviserated the feeble idea that the system had "...alleviat[ed] the condition of the poor."
I do so appreciate your use as a foil, allowing me to reveal the truth.
Because the rich consume and therefore are taxed on only a very small part of their wealth, whereas the poor not only consume everything they earn, in many cases are in debt and therefore paying taxes on more than they earn!Thats one opinion. How can paying taxes on what you consume not be fair?
Where do you get the idea that just because someone works harder then the next through labor or ideas, they suddenly have an higher duty.
THEY DONT.................
Because the rich consume and therefore are taxed on only a very small part of their wealth, whereas the poor not only consume everything they earn, in many cases are in debt and therefore paying taxes on more than they earn!
Where do you get the idea that just because someone works harder then the next through labor or ideas, they suddenly have an higher duty.
THEY DONT.................
You think Rush Limbaugh works harder than a migrant farm worker?
Okay, you tell us how the U.S. gets to a better place by ending all of the following (all of which fall under my reference to alleviating the condition of the poor - note: poor being a relative term)
End the following:
1. Medicaid
2. Food stamps (and any other needs based assistance related to food)
3. Housing assistance
4. Heat/energy assistance
5. Public schools (i.e., education available regardless of your ability to pay)
6. the progressive income tax and all income based tax benefits (i.e. lower taxes based on lower income)
7. needs based higher education benefits (i.e. tuition assistance, etc.)
8. the minimum wage
9. the right to bargain collectively
10. cash assistance to the poor (i.e. 'welfare')
...and whatever I've left out...
All of the above are policies imposed by the GOVERNMENT to alleviate the condition of being (relatively) poor.
You call the above a 'trap', or whatever, and call it all a detriment?
Then show us how America gets better if all of that were gone.
We have all that AND record Poverty.
Amazing
I thought our poor were better off than any poor people in the world.
You idiots need to coordinate your propaganda.
Because the rich consume and therefore are taxed on only a very small part of their wealth, whereas the poor not only consume everything they earn, in many cases are in debt and therefore paying taxes on more than they earn!
Where do you get the idea that just because someone works harder then the next through labor or ideas, they suddenly have an higher duty.
THEY DONT.................
You think Rush Limbaugh works harder than a migrant farm worker?
