Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, FYI, businessman in Somalia who has a very limited workforce when it comes to education, and a US businessman who has a wide variety of education and skills, who do you think is going to earn more money? Go on, tell me.

It doesn't matter whether an individual is selling their labor to you or not. You're able to buy it.

If you want to buy a car and you go to the local shop and you can only buy carrots and bananas, do you think your car is going to earn you as much money as the guy who can go to the local shop and buy all the parts a car usually uses? Do you?

I didn't say the individuals don't make money out of this. You've COMPLETELY missed the point.

And your comment about the businessman who travels to Somalia.... what the feck are you going on about?

If you don't understand what I say, I'd rather you just said you're incapable of understanding rather than pretend you do know and then write some drivel that has nothing to do with what I said.

SO tell me why do businesses consistently set up shop in other countries if the workforce is so poorly educated? obviously your education that the business is supposedly exploiting isn't enough to keep that business here is it? And you mentioned security and somalia not me

You equate you using government roads to make a living to the business getting more out of it than you do the business pays far more for roads via all the additional taxes it pays compared to what you pay to use the same roads

And yet somehow you think businesses are getting more than you from government?

They set up shop in other countries because the labor is CHEAPER. Sometimes companies want lower educated workers to do menial tasks. In the US these workers will cost too much because the US has an economy that is on the higher end, which means everything costs more. Which means workers want more money to do the same task.

Yes, I mentioned security and Somalia to you. I didn't not just spurt out the words "security" and "Somalia" and expect you to make a sentence with those two words, I actually made a point.

Back to roads. If a company had to use only private roads, a company would pay FAR MORE MONEY to use those roads than they do right now to use government roads.

Government roads are far more cost effective than private roads. They don't have to employ people to take money off drivers, they don't have to pay for electronic machines which will charge the driver, so everyone saves money, including the business. However businesses will use the roads far more than individuals will.

If you take that into consideration you'll see that businesses should be paying more money for using the roads in tax than individuals.

Government roads... LOOOOL.

Whose taxes paid for those "government roads"?

This is like dealing with children.

Taxes paid for the roads and taxes help with the upkeep of those roads.

Now, the point of what I am saying is that people should pay their fair share. With a flat tax the rich wouldn't be paying their fair share. They'd be paying less for the roads as a percentage than they'd otherwise be paying under a private road system.

People who paid taxes have every right to enjoy the services paid by those taxes. There are 47% of people who are not paying any federal income taxes. How fair is that they use services that they haven't pay for?

It would help if you explain what is the "fair share".

"fair share" is not something easy to come up with. Fair share would basically be people paying for the right amount of taxes for the services they use.

47% of people don't pay any federal income taxes.... so?

43% of households pay no income tax: Study

Actually it's 43%.

Federal income tax isn't the only tax out there either.

"
Roberton Williams, a senior fellow with the Tax Policy Center, notes that households that pay no federal income tax are very likely to still be paying other taxes. Those include payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security, sales taxes and other state and local taxes."

However...

"approximately 10 percent are elderly"

"A smaller portion—about 3 percent—are making less than $20,000 a year and therefore aren't subject to federal income tax because they are too poor."

"Williams' analysis found that about 29 percent of all households include people who are working, and subject to payroll taxes, but don't have a federal income tax bill. That could be because of deductions or other tax breaks."

"Those who pay no federal income taxes aren't all low wage earners. Thousands of people who have income of more than $200,000[FONT=Gotham Narrow SSm 4r, Arial] a year have been able to zero out their federal income tax bill, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service."[/FONT]

[FONT=Gotham Narrow SSm 4r, Arial]Thousands of wealthy earners manage to zero out tax bills

"[/FONT]More than 35,000 people who had income of more than $200,000 in 2009 paid no federal income taxes that year, according to a new report from the Internal Revenue Service."

"The number of wealthy people who paid no federal income taxes rose between 2007 and 2009, thanks in part to new tax credits, according to the report. "

So, is this system fair? No, it's not. Would a flat tax be fair? No it wouldn't.

 

[Contumacious]

It is fucking unbelievable that parasitic welfare recipients get to describe that marxist income tax as "reasonable, sustainable and fair".



.

A tax system based on your capacity to pay is thoroughly reasonable, sustainable and fair. Which is why virtually every nation on earth uses it.

If you disagree, tell me why.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (French: De chacun selon ses facultés, à chacun selon ses besoins; German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan first used by Louis Blanc in 1851[1] (although an earlier version of the saying appeared in Étienne-Gabriel Morelly's The Code of Nature[2]) and popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[3] The principle refers to free access and distribution of goods and services.[4] In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[5][6]

So we *shouldn't* take into account someone's ability to pay taxes when applying a tax rate?

NO.

Bill Gates is as American as Joe Blow even though Blow only makes $9000 a year.

Why the fuck should Gates be forced to pay more?

A "fair" tax is UNconstitutional and UNamerican.

Move to Venezuela - quit inciting violence.


.

So you're not talking about the same rate for both Bill and Joe Blow. You're talking about them paying the exact same *amount* in taxes?

If so, holy shit. I didn't know that flavor of right wing Kool-aid even existed.

Of course not, you are a fucking ignorant fool.

But that is the way it was before 1913.


.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's been over for years

Yeah, let's pretend that this whole thing is really simple, and that when it finishes everything reverts back to normal, shall we?

Or maybe you could look into past recessions and see when the impact of the recession actually stops.

Unemployment is down. However someone decided that "real unemployment" is what matters now, for the first time ever, and that people who choose not to work are somehow "unemployed".

On the other hand there are issues which will never be solved, not because Obama or any other sucker is in the White House, but because politicians, in both the two leeching parties are unwilling to deal with such problems.

Excuses excuses that's the problem with this cuntry that and all the incessant whining

Excuses? I don't see excuses. Actually trying to find out what the reality is rather than playing silly beggers political partisan bullshit game is not making excuses.

But then passing off reality as "excuses" is an easy way of just passing off stuff you find inconvenient, isn't it?

You're making excuses as why a new simplified fair tax system won't work when it clearly would

I didn't say it wouldn't work. It could clearly work. It would work very well for the richer people.

You're trying to pass off reality, that a recession doesn't just end one day and then everything goes back to normal. It's never happened like that in history, and won't happen this time either.

It's only taken longer than ever before why is that do you think

 

[Skull Pilot]

I hear the claim that so called rich people use government services more

Yet no one has ever proven that

It's obvious that the poor use government services more than the rich

Rich people don't send their kids to public schools, don't get financial aid or default on government guaranteed student loans don't default on government backed mortgages don't use welfare or food stamps don't use public transportation etc etc and they pay the lion's share of taxes

Proven it? What do you need proving?

I work for you, I make use on MY education. You employee 200 people, you make use of 200 people's education. Most of them are likely to have gone through the public education system.

I drive 10 miles to work every day, I make use of 20 miles of road there and back. You employee 200 people you're going to be using 400 miles of road every day just to get your employees to work every day. On top of that the road you need to get your products from one place to another, on top of that the road required in making those products. Then if those products are sold in a shop you'll need to extra road other companies will use in selling those.

Do you need more proof than this?

I could go on and on about security and how much a businessman in Somalia would earn and how much an American businessman in the US would earn.

FYI YOU are using your education not your employer YOU are selling your labor to your employer Your free public education is worth more to you than to any employer and really a public HS education ain't worth that much

YOU are using the roads so YOU can make a living

And any company that ships products over the roads pays far far more in taxes for those roads
Excise and registration fees on every vehicle gas taxes, per mile taxes etc

So really business pays more for the roads than you do

If a businessman travels to Somalia he doesn't get an armed US escort

Okay, FYI, businessman in Somalia who has a very limited workforce when it comes to education, and a US businessman who has a wide variety of education and skills, who do you think is going to earn more money? Go on, tell me.

It doesn't matter whether an individual is selling their labor to you or not. You're able to buy it.

If you want to buy a car and you go to the local shop and you can only buy carrots and bananas, do you think your car is going to earn you as much money as the guy who can go to the local shop and buy all the parts a car usually uses? Do you?

I didn't say the individuals don't make money out of this. You've COMPLETELY missed the point.

And your comment about the businessman who travels to Somalia.... what the feck are you going on about?

If you don't understand what I say, I'd rather you just said you're incapable of understanding rather than pretend you do know and then write some drivel that has nothing to do with what I said.

SO tell me why do businesses consistently set up shop in other countries if the workforce is so poorly educated? obviously your education that the business is supposedly exploiting isn't enough to keep that business here is it? And you mentioned security and somalia not me

You equate you using government roads to make a living to the business getting more out of it than you do the business pays far more for roads via all the additional taxes it pays compared to what you pay to use the same roads

And yet somehow you think businesses are getting more than you from government?

They set up shop in other countries because the labor is CHEAPER. Sometimes companies want lower educated workers to do menial tasks. In the US these workers will cost too much because the US has an economy that is on the higher end, which means everything costs more. Which means workers want more money to do the same task.

Yes, I mentioned security and Somalia to you. I didn't not just spurt out the words "security" and "Somalia" and expect you to make a sentence with those two words, I actually made a point.

Back to roads. If a company had to use only private roads, a company would pay FAR MORE MONEY to use those roads than they do right now to use government roads.

Government roads are far more cost effective than private roads. They don't have to employ people to take money off drivers, they don't have to pay for electronic machines which will charge the driver, so everyone saves money, including the business. However businesses will use the roads far more than individuals will.

If you take that into consideration you'll see that businesses should be paying more money for using the roads in tax than individuals.

Businesses pay far more in taxes for roads I already told you why

And collectively individuals use roads far more than businesses

 

[Skull Pilot]

FYI YOU are using your education not your employer YOU are selling your labor to your employer Your free public education is worth more to you than to any employer and really a public HS education ain't worth that much

YOU are using the roads so YOU can make a living

And any company that ships products over the roads pays far far more in taxes for those roads
Excise and registration fees on every vehicle gas taxes, per mile taxes etc

So really business pays more for the roads than you do

If a businessman travels to Somalia he doesn't get an armed US escort

Okay, FYI, businessman in Somalia who has a very limited workforce when it comes to education, and a US businessman who has a wide variety of education and skills, who do you think is going to earn more money? Go on, tell me.

It doesn't matter whether an individual is selling their labor to you or not. You're able to buy it.

If you want to buy a car and you go to the local shop and you can only buy carrots and bananas, do you think your car is going to earn you as much money as the guy who can go to the local shop and buy all the parts a car usually uses? Do you?

I didn't say the individuals don't make money out of this. You've COMPLETELY missed the point.

And your comment about the businessman who travels to Somalia.... what the feck are you going on about?

If you don't understand what I say, I'd rather you just said you're incapable of understanding rather than pretend you do know and then write some drivel that has nothing to do with what I said.

SO tell me why do businesses consistently set up shop in other countries if the workforce is so poorly educated? obviously your education that the business is supposedly exploiting isn't enough to keep that business here is it? And you mentioned security and somalia not me

You equate you using government roads to make a living to the business getting more out of it than you do the business pays far more for roads via all the additional taxes it pays compared to what you pay to use the same roads

And yet somehow you think businesses are getting more than you from government?

They set up shop in other countries because the labor is CHEAPER. Sometimes companies want lower educated workers to do menial tasks. In the US these workers will cost too much because the US has an economy that is on the higher end, which means everything costs more. Which means workers want more money to do the same task.

Yes, I mentioned security and Somalia to you. I didn't not just spurt out the words "security" and "Somalia" and expect you to make a sentence with those two words, I actually made a point.

Back to roads. If a company had to use only private roads, a company would pay FAR MORE MONEY to use those roads than they do right now to use government roads.

Government roads are far more cost effective than private roads. They don't have to employ people to take money off drivers, they don't have to pay for electronic machines which will charge the driver, so everyone saves money, including the business. However businesses will use the roads far more than individuals will.

If you take that into consideration you'll see that businesses should be paying more money for using the roads in tax than individuals.

Government roads... LOOOOL.

Whose taxes paid for those "government roads"?

This is like dealing with children.

Taxes paid for the roads and taxes help with the upkeep of those roads.

Now, the point of what I am saying is that people should pay their fair share. With a flat tax the rich wouldn't be paying their fair share. They'd be paying less for the roads as a percentage than they'd otherwise be paying under a private road system.

you do know that roads are paid for by gas and excise taxes more than income taxes don't you ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The only way a share is fair is if it's an equal share for or from everyone

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, let's pretend that this whole thing is really simple, and that when it finishes everything reverts back to normal, shall we?

Or maybe you could look into past recessions and see when the impact of the recession actually stops.

Unemployment is down. However someone decided that "real unemployment" is what matters now, for the first time ever, and that people who choose not to work are somehow "unemployed".

On the other hand there are issues which will never be solved, not because Obama or any other sucker is in the White House, but because politicians, in both the two leeching parties are unwilling to deal with such problems.

Excuses excuses that's the problem with this cuntry that and all the incessant whining

Excuses? I don't see excuses. Actually trying to find out what the reality is rather than playing silly beggers political partisan bullshit game is not making excuses.

But then passing off reality as "excuses" is an easy way of just passing off stuff you find inconvenient, isn't it?

You're making excuses as why a new simplified fair tax system won't work when it clearly would

I didn't say it wouldn't work. It could clearly work. It would work very well for the richer people.

You're trying to pass off reality, that a recession doesn't just end one day and then everything goes back to normal. It's never happened like that in history, and won't happen this time either.

It's only taken longer than ever before why is that do you think

The higher you go, the harder you fall.

The recession should have come earlier, the non-recession period went from the late 1980s through to the late 2000s. Too long a time. Bush pumped the economy, not only with military spending but also with ridiculous tax cuts in order to shore up his presidency in a manner that shouldn't happen.

When it came crashing down it was massive because of the debt Bush had been building up.

The recession was always going to be a bad one.

Economists see risks of severe downturn - Jan. 23, 2008

In January 2008 "
Recession 2008: How bad it can get

Many economists are predicting a short, shallow recession. But there's also a significant risk of a more serious economic decline."


"
But here's a disheartening message for those already worried about economic growth -- it could get much worse."

"But many of those same economists say they also can envision a worst-case scenario where spending by consumers and businesses falls off sharply, unemployment heads higher than normal during a typical recession and housing and credit market problems worsen.
"I can easily imagine [the economy] going into a free fall," said Dean Baker, the chief economist for the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "The danger is that housing prices continue to tumble and accelerate, people's ability to pull out equity will evaporate, and you'll see a serious downturn in consumption.""

By September 2008

"
Worst Crisis Since '30s, With No End Yet in Sight"


This was always going to be the case. They didn't predict it at the beginning of 2008, but by September they knew this would be so. It's not Obama's fault that it took so long. He did what had to be done, and it happened.

The consequences, the food stamps and all of that, were going to happen and take a long time to sort out no matter what.

If you look at the 1990s, it took ages or food stamp consumption to go down from the recession in the 1980s.

Only to go up after Bush became president. Why? Obama's fault?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The only way a share is fair is if it's an equal share for or from everyone

Er... what?

So, if I go to the Movie Theater once a year, I should pay the SAME as someone who goes to the Movie Theater EVERY NIGHT? Only that is FAIR? Are you serious?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, FYI, businessman in Somalia who has a very limited workforce when it comes to education, and a US businessman who has a wide variety of education and skills, who do you think is going to earn more money? Go on, tell me.

It doesn't matter whether an individual is selling their labor to you or not. You're able to buy it.

If you want to buy a car and you go to the local shop and you can only buy carrots and bananas, do you think your car is going to earn you as much money as the guy who can go to the local shop and buy all the parts a car usually uses? Do you?

I didn't say the individuals don't make money out of this. You've COMPLETELY missed the point.

And your comment about the businessman who travels to Somalia.... what the feck are you going on about?

If you don't understand what I say, I'd rather you just said you're incapable of understanding rather than pretend you do know and then write some drivel that has nothing to do with what I said.

SO tell me why do businesses consistently set up shop in other countries if the workforce is so poorly educated? obviously your education that the business is supposedly exploiting isn't enough to keep that business here is it? And you mentioned security and somalia not me

You equate you using government roads to make a living to the business getting more out of it than you do the business pays far more for roads via all the additional taxes it pays compared to what you pay to use the same roads

And yet somehow you think businesses are getting more than you from government?

They set up shop in other countries because the labor is CHEAPER. Sometimes companies want lower educated workers to do menial tasks. In the US these workers will cost too much because the US has an economy that is on the higher end, which means everything costs more. Which means workers want more money to do the same task.

Yes, I mentioned security and Somalia to you. I didn't not just spurt out the words "security" and "Somalia" and expect you to make a sentence with those two words, I actually made a point.

Back to roads. If a company had to use only private roads, a company would pay FAR MORE MONEY to use those roads than they do right now to use government roads.

Government roads are far more cost effective than private roads. They don't have to employ people to take money off drivers, they don't have to pay for electronic machines which will charge the driver, so everyone saves money, including the business. However businesses will use the roads far more than individuals will.

If you take that into consideration you'll see that businesses should be paying more money for using the roads in tax than individuals.

Government roads... LOOOOL.

Whose taxes paid for those "government roads"?

This is like dealing with children.

Taxes paid for the roads and taxes help with the upkeep of those roads.

Now, the point of what I am saying is that people should pay their fair share. With a flat tax the rich wouldn't be paying their fair share. They'd be paying less for the roads as a percentage than they'd otherwise be paying under a private road system.

you do know that roads are paid for by gas and excise taxes more than income taxes don't you ?

It doesn't matter. I'm simply making a point. You wanted to know what fair is, I'm explaining it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Proven it? What do you need proving?

I work for you, I make use on MY education. You employee 200 people, you make use of 200 people's education. Most of them are likely to have gone through the public education system.

I drive 10 miles to work every day, I make use of 20 miles of road there and back. You employee 200 people you're going to be using 400 miles of road every day just to get your employees to work every day. On top of that the road you need to get your products from one place to another, on top of that the road required in making those products. Then if those products are sold in a shop you'll need to extra road other companies will use in selling those.

Do you need more proof than this?

I could go on and on about security and how much a businessman in Somalia would earn and how much an American businessman in the US would earn.

FYI YOU are using your education not your employer YOU are selling your labor to your employer Your free public education is worth more to you than to any employer and really a public HS education ain't worth that much

YOU are using the roads so YOU can make a living

And any company that ships products over the roads pays far far more in taxes for those roads
Excise and registration fees on every vehicle gas taxes, per mile taxes etc

So really business pays more for the roads than you do

If a businessman travels to Somalia he doesn't get an armed US escort

Okay, FYI, businessman in Somalia who has a very limited workforce when it comes to education, and a US businessman who has a wide variety of education and skills, who do you think is going to earn more money? Go on, tell me.

It doesn't matter whether an individual is selling their labor to you or not. You're able to buy it.

If you want to buy a car and you go to the local shop and you can only buy carrots and bananas, do you think your car is going to earn you as much money as the guy who can go to the local shop and buy all the parts a car usually uses? Do you?

I didn't say the individuals don't make money out of this. You've COMPLETELY missed the point.

And your comment about the businessman who travels to Somalia.... what the feck are you going on about?

If you don't understand what I say, I'd rather you just said you're incapable of understanding rather than pretend you do know and then write some drivel that has nothing to do with what I said.

SO tell me why do businesses consistently set up shop in other countries if the workforce is so poorly educated? obviously your education that the business is supposedly exploiting isn't enough to keep that business here is it? And you mentioned security and somalia not me

You equate you using government roads to make a living to the business getting more out of it than you do the business pays far more for roads via all the additional taxes it pays compared to what you pay to use the same roads

And yet somehow you think businesses are getting more than you from government?

They set up shop in other countries because the labor is CHEAPER. Sometimes companies want lower educated workers to do menial tasks. In the US these workers will cost too much because the US has an economy that is on the higher end, which means everything costs more. Which means workers want more money to do the same task.

Yes, I mentioned security and Somalia to you. I didn't not just spurt out the words "security" and "Somalia" and expect you to make a sentence with those two words, I actually made a point.

Back to roads. If a company had to use only private roads, a company would pay FAR MORE MONEY to use those roads than they do right now to use government roads.

Government roads are far more cost effective than private roads. They don't have to employ people to take money off drivers, they don't have to pay for electronic machines which will charge the driver, so everyone saves money, including the business. However businesses will use the roads far more than individuals will.

If you take that into consideration you'll see that businesses should be paying more money for using the roads in tax than individuals.

Businesses pay far more in taxes for roads I already told you why

And collectively individuals use roads far more than businesses

Again, they might pay more, but do they pay their fair amount of more or do they pay less than what they actually use?

 

[Redfish]

And now for the fact:
"Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.

Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."

Scribd​

I just proved that the poverty level has been lowered dramatically. Go back and read it.

Liar.


"Poverty Up 30.5% for Americans 18 to 64 Since LBJ Declared War on Poverty"

Poverty Up 30.5% for Americans 18 to 64 Since LBJ Declared War on Poverty

Not true. I posted the link that proves you wrong, your childish refusal to read it notwithstanding.

would you like to see socialist democrat welfare at its finest? visit an indian reservation.

or, you could visit Detroit.

And why would any poor person there be less poor if they had no food stamps, no Medicaid, no housing assistance, no energy assistance, no public education they couldn't pay for?

Tell me how your system would magically make those people better off.

Did I ever say that all public assistance should stop? no. What I said is that there should be limits on who gets it and how long it lasts.

the best way to eliminate poverty is to create a booming economy where there are more jobs than job seekers.

A liberal run economy will always fail. I mentioned Detroit. Years of liberal democrat rule, strong union presence, minorities in control. That once great city is now a liberal shithole.

Liberalism does not work, never has, never will

 

[Redfish]

what happened to them before the welfare system? They found jobs. No one wants to eliminate help for the truly needy, those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves, but able bodied people should not be given a free meal ticket, free housing, and free energy.

Able bodied people receiving any form of welfare should be required to do public service work before getting their payments-----------clean the streets, paint public buildings, collect the trash, clean the ditches, etc. AND, they should have to pass a drug test before even getting on the list and another one before collecting each payment.

The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.

we all know that private charity works better and more efficiently, but the reality of the USA today is that there isn't enough private charity to cover those truly In need.

for the record, I have no sympathy for able bodied people who are too lazy to work, or even look for work.

Actually, we don't know that.
Roosevelt took over private charity based on the enormous numbers of unemployed that the created....or at least, added to.



Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, welfare was handled by charities and churches, carefully considering who got the relief, and the reasons for same.

Under FDR, welfare and charity became a patronage endeavor, to get votes rather than to ease suffering.

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) doled out relief nationally to those states with the best political connections. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 began with the best of intentions...but under the Democrats it went to well-connected friends, including mayors and governors.

Illinois, a swing state, got $55,443,721, which was almost 20% of the RFC's $300 million, more than NY, California, and Texas combined.
Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression," p.262-263.



But in terms of functionality....private charity is far more efficacious.
Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..

its no secret that the entire democrat welfare system is an attempt to buy votes, everyone understands that except a few brainwashed democrat sheep.

And the Right isn't offering more and more budget busting tax cuts to buy votes? Are you mentally retarded?

you have it backwards as usual. Budget busting occurs when there is more spending than revenue. The "right" is asking for a balanced budget, just like you and I have to have for our personal finances.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I just proved that the poverty level has been lowered dramatically. Go back and read it.

Liar.


"Poverty Up 30.5% for Americans 18 to 64 Since LBJ Declared War on Poverty"

Poverty Up 30.5% for Americans 18 to 64 Since LBJ Declared War on Poverty

Not true. I posted the link that proves you wrong, your childish refusal to read it notwithstanding.

would you like to see socialist democrat welfare at its finest? visit an indian reservation.

or, you could visit Detroit.

And why would any poor person there be less poor if they had no food stamps, no Medicaid, no housing assistance, no energy assistance, no public education they couldn't pay for?

Tell me how your system would magically make those people better off.

Did I ever say that all public assistance should stop? no. What I said is that there should be limits on who gets it and how long it lasts.

the best way to eliminate poverty is to create a booming economy where there are more jobs than job seekers.

A liberal run economy will always fail. I mentioned Detroit. Years of liberal democrat rule, strong union presence, minorities in control. That once great city is now a liberal shithole.

Liberalism does not work, never has, never will

How do weak unions create better paying jobs?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.

we all know that private charity works better and more efficiently, but the reality of the USA today is that there isn't enough private charity to cover those truly In need.

for the record, I have no sympathy for able bodied people who are too lazy to work, or even look for work.

Actually, we don't know that.
Roosevelt took over private charity based on the enormous numbers of unemployed that the created....or at least, added to.



Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, welfare was handled by charities and churches, carefully considering who got the relief, and the reasons for same.

Under FDR, welfare and charity became a patronage endeavor, to get votes rather than to ease suffering.

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) doled out relief nationally to those states with the best political connections. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 began with the best of intentions...but under the Democrats it went to well-connected friends, including mayors and governors.

Illinois, a swing state, got $55,443,721, which was almost 20% of the RFC's $300 million, more than NY, California, and Texas combined.
Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression," p.262-263.



But in terms of functionality....private charity is far more efficacious.
Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..

its no secret that the entire democrat welfare system is an attempt to buy votes, everyone understands that except a few brainwashed democrat sheep.

And the Right isn't offering more and more budget busting tax cuts to buy votes? Are you mentally retarded?

you have it backwards as usual. Budget busting occurs when there is more spending than revenue. The "right" is asking for a balanced budget, just like you and I have to have for our personal finances.

Americans have balanced budgets? lolol, that's the funniest thing you've ever said.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says idiots in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"

Well all of you who love this type of blatantly unfair tax scheme I ask you why stop at income?

Why not use progressive tax schemes for everything that is taxed?

Let's say you own a 4 bedroom home but you and your wife have only 1 kid. You only "need" 2 bedrooms so some moron in your state government can decide that those 2 bedrooms must be taken from you and given to someone else and then inserts 2 people into your home because they "need" those rooms and you don't

What about a vacation home? Surely you don't "need" that if you only use it on occasion.

You and your wife have 2 cars and you have your dream car in the garage you don't need that classic 1969 GTO so why not let the government take it from you to give to someone who does "need" it

I bet that sounds like a great plan to some of you doesn't it?

You realize that most states employ progressive property taxes. Where I live we have an exemption which is limited to X dollars. That means that lower income homeowners get a much larger tax break than their larger-home owning brothern...

Sales taxes are based on market assessments not merely the acreage of land and the number of bedrooms in a home you know that don't you?

But the market assessments use exclusions that are not scaled to the value of the property. You are familiar with the concept of 'exemption' don't you?