Collective wealth leads to collective well-being

[bigrebnc1775]

he poor pay less overall and the rich pay more overall and so eventually creating a smaller gap between the two in my opinion but still allowing for a relatively high standard of living for all.

We're already there... The top 5% of wage earners pay about 65% of ALL income tax.. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay next to nothing.. How much MORE "progressive" can you get???

Who Pays Income Taxes?

The new data shows that the top 1 percent of earners (with incomes over $515,371) paid nearly 39 percent of all income taxes, up slightly from the previous tax year’s 37 percent share. The amount of taxes paid in this percentile is nearly twice as much their adjusted gross income (AGI) load.

The top 10 percent of earners bore responsibility for 70 percent of all income taxes paid – up slightly from 2016 – while half of all tax filers paid 97 percent of all income tax revenue. Indicating the degree of progressivity in the code, the bottom 50 percent of earners took home 11 percent of total nationwide income while owing 3 percent of all income taxes.

Now -- if you're saying your saying the MIDDLE class need to contribute more (and even at 25% most of them WOULD be) -- you're probably right.. Because there's 30 times MORE of them than the 1% at the top and that makes a BIGGER difference than hiking taxes on the 1%....



In the chart above,

Yes I am saying that the middle class would need to contribute more. Upwards to 25% or so. Like I said above in my previous post, all people who earn an income would pay a flat tax rate along with an addition step/progressive tax % in addition to that based on the income bracket.

Well they'd pretty HAVE TO with all the free stuff you want to guarantee.. In even MODERATELY socialist countries the taxes on middle class, their middle class is carrying the BULK of the taxes.. Because of all the free stuff and benefits... Norway Sweden top rate is in the 50 to 60% range.. But the BIG DIFF is this.....

This chart shows WHERE that highest tax rate kicks in as a MULTIPLE of the "average income"... Folks in those moderate socialist countries get hit with the WORST BRACKET for being just 50% more than the average..

THAT better bring some REALLY REALLY REALLY good services to the middle class in return... Or there would be revolts.. Doesn't even cover their high VAT taxes..

But STILL -- you're not changing "the income gap"... Which is what you set out to do... You've just created monstrous, unfriendly, uncompassionate, one size fits all "programs" for healthcare for everyone.. But the POOR still are poor...

The only other country that I have experience living in and being part of it's culture is Norway. I can't adapt Norway's welfare state to the US exactly because of different variables but there are ways to utilize our collective wealth as a nation and create social programs that can benefit all citizens. It does work in Norway and people are generally very happy with the services for what they pay in taxation but again, the culture is different and the mindset is different which is another point I am trying to make here. We have the collective wealth generated in this country's capitalistic system to create social programs that are "free", but the American mindset is not one of doing what's best for all it's doing what's best for me, and that is the biggest barrier to any collective investment project in my opinion.

no thanks collectivism advances underachievers (lazy ass pieces of shit) to an equal status

 

[Pogo]

he poor pay less overall and the rich pay more overall and so eventually creating a smaller gap between the two in my opinion but still allowing for a relatively high standard of living for all.

We're already there... The top 5% of wage earners pay about 65% of ALL income tax.. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay next to nothing.. How much MORE "progressive" can you get???

Who Pays Income Taxes?

The new data shows that the top 1 percent of earners (with incomes over $515,371) paid nearly 39 percent of all income taxes, up slightly from the previous tax year’s 37 percent share. The amount of taxes paid in this percentile is nearly twice as much their adjusted gross income (AGI) load.

The top 10 percent of earners bore responsibility for 70 percent of all income taxes paid – up slightly from 2016 – while half of all tax filers paid 97 percent of all income tax revenue. Indicating the degree of progressivity in the code, the bottom 50 percent of earners took home 11 percent of total nationwide income while owing 3 percent of all income taxes.

Now -- if you're saying your saying the MIDDLE class need to contribute more (and even at 25% most of them WOULD be) -- you're probably right.. Because there's 30 times MORE of them than the 1% at the top and that makes a BIGGER difference than hiking taxes on the 1%....



In the chart above,

Yes I am saying that the middle class would need to contribute more. Upwards to 25% or so. Like I said above in my previous post, all people who earn an income would pay a flat tax rate along with an addition step/progressive tax % in addition to that based on the income bracket.

Well they'd pretty HAVE TO with all the free stuff you want to guarantee.. In even MODERATELY socialist countries the taxes on middle class, their middle class is carrying the BULK of the taxes.. Because of all the free stuff and benefits... Norway Sweden top rate is in the 50 to 60% range.. But the BIG DIFF is this.....

This chart shows WHERE that highest tax rate kicks in as a MULTIPLE of the "average income"... Folks in those moderate socialist countries get hit with the WORST BRACKET for being just 50% more than the average..

THAT better bring some REALLY REALLY REALLY good services to the middle class in return... Or there would be revolts.. Doesn't even cover their high VAT taxes..

But STILL -- you're not changing "the income gap"... Which is what you set out to do... You've just created monstrous, unfriendly, uncompassionate, one size fits all "programs" for healthcare for everyone.. But the POOR still are poor...

The only other country that I have experience living in and being part of it's culture is Norway. I can't adapt Norway's welfare state to the US exactly because of different variables but there are ways to utilize our collective wealth as a nation and create social programs that can benefit all citizens. It does work in Norway and people are generally very happy with the services for what they pay in taxation but again, the culture is different and the mindset is different which is another point I am trying to make here. We have the collective wealth generated in this country's capitalistic system to create social programs that are "free", but the American mindset is not one of doing what's best for all it's doing what's best for me, and that is the biggest barrier to any collective investment project in my opinion.

SPOT ON. Again, cultural values. We're infected with this cowboy/TV western/pioneer "individual" mentality in a world that left that need behind many generations ago. That and the isolation of one's personal cell with one's personal TV, have cost us the 'town square/community' instinct, and it's unnatural for a social animal, and that repression brings consequences. Kind of what I was illustrating in 232.

Commodity fetishism cannot help but lead to that. We call ourselves a land of religious freedom yet there is absolutely a state religion which is relentlessly preached and pounded and enforced, and that is the Religion of Money.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No I don't think children should be taught to strive for mediocrity or not to strive to improve and wallow in failure. I'm also not promoting communism and have stated several times now that I am a capitalist it's just I'd like to see our collective capitalistic wealth be used in a more compassion way and in ways that benefit all that invest in the success of our society and our country in order to improve our collective well being. As for children in my personal opinion a small child doesn't need to be taught to be cutthroat or to be all about winning and all about themselves. If children were taught to simply have fun and to take joy in the happiness of others then perhaps as they become teenagers and then adults that same mindset would still exist as they become leaders of this country's future.

Oh? Wasn't it you who lamented "So for example in the United States we push kids at a young age want to be the best,"

Being the best obviously is something you object to, better to strive for mediocrity.

And you are not a capitalist, That you fail to grasp the meaning of the words you use does not alter those words.

Capitalism, a system where the means of production are controlled by private individuals along with strong support for property rights.

Socialism, the stage of Communism where the state or central authority controls the means of production for the good of the collective subjects of that state. A centrally planned and managed economy.

"Collective wealth" is just another term for socialism. If you want to see the "compassion" of the system you advocate, just look to Cuba. The fact is that when people have plenty they tend to be generous and magnanimous. When people suffer deprivation under "collective poverty" they tend to go into survival mode. We are the greatest country on earth because we honor and promote achievement. You Communists want to change that.

 

[BluesLegend]

To be fair i'm not a tax expert and so the exact number would need to be analyzed, but I think a good starting point would be at least 25% personal income tax regardless of income.

Obama already looked into this. If you raised the income tax to 99% on the 'rich' it would only cover the current deficit with no money left over for your FREE stuff or future cost increases. Start over your idea is DOA.

 

[beagle9]

I could have done a better job explaining my position on individualism but i'll try now to explain it more. I'm not saying that a person can't be themselves or even remove individualism as a whole. I agree that "self" is important and that individual expression and opinions matter and should matter. What I am mainly focusing on is the aspects of individualism that yields itself to value the success of the individual above all else. That there can only be one winner. That being on top of the mountain alone is a better view and better accomplishment than being there with others. Basically it's the motivation for success that I am emphasizing and how that either helps the collective many or just the individual. Does that make sense?

So for example in the United States we push kids at a young age want to be the best, to want to defeat that other person. The victory is most important, the status that comes with that victory is what matters. Our current culture rewards that mindset and even encourages it in nearly all aspects of life here. Success is determined based off of the money you have, the salary you get, the car you drive, the title at work that you have, the amount wins and trophies that you have. For me, personally, I don't find that to be a rewarding view of life or how we as a culture and society should view success or be teaching as success. Do your best, but also be supportive, be cooperative, show solidarity. Are you happy? Does that new material possession make you happier or would a better relationship with your neighbors actually be more rewarding and make you happier in the long term? When it comes to work and your job, do you want to be the best or do you want to simply like what you do? Liking what you do will bring more long term happiness and quality of life for you than trying to get to the top in my opinion, and in turn if society as a whole thought like that then perhaps it would create a more unified country, a happier country, and less stressed country.

This transitions into things like healthcare and education in my opinion. A society that that favors the winners and looks down on those that couldn't compete as well will have programs that and systems that will reflect that mindset. You get what you pay for basically. A society that views success as a team win will create systems that emphasize that because if a teammate struggles it can affect the team as a whole. You can either coach that teammate and help them get better or you can cut that person and give up on them. If the team is invested in the success of the team then everybody typically has the same goal and vision. If the country viewed healthcare for everybody as a way to invest in Americans then perhaps more people would be willing to want to try a little harder and be part of the team. But when you have millions of people who look at that as weakness. They look at this topic as "why do I need to help that person, they just need to work harder on their own" then sure, it won't work, because that person is about "i" not "we" in my opinion.

Ask yourself why we as a country will pull together for the common good in the case of emergencies or national crises, but yet all the days before and after that common good is labeled as something bad? We can come together to fight a war but not to help Americans with healthcare? It's odd to me.

So children should be taught to strive for mediocrity? Never strive to improve but wallow in failure?

Yeah, great plan, and the explanation why the Communism you promote ALWAYS leads to misery, poverty, and deprivation.

No I don't think children should be taught to strive for mediocrity or not to strive to improve and wallow in failure. I'm also not promoting communism and have stated several times now that I am a capitalist it's just I'd like to see our collective capitalistic wealth be used in a more compassion way and in ways that benefit all that invest in the success of our society and our country in order to improve our collective well being. As for children in my personal opinion a small child doesn't need to be taught to be cutthroat or to be all about winning and all about themselves. If children were taught to simply have fun and to take joy in the happiness of others then perhaps as they become teenagers and then adults that same mindset would still exist as they become leaders of this country's future.

Ok we get it, you don't want your dead beat brother-in-law, brother, sister-in-law, sister living in your house anymore, and eating you out of house and home, causing trouble between you and your family, drinking, and not working, so you want we the federal government to help get him or her off of your back for you... Uh is that it ?? LOL.

Nope, it's time for families to be responsible for the heathens they brought into this world or found themselves surrounded by, and not we the federal government being responsible for them instead.

Just trying to figure it all out.

 

[beagle9]

he poor pay less overall and the rich pay more overall and so eventually creating a smaller gap between the two in my opinion but still allowing for a relatively high standard of living for all.

We're already there... The top 5% of wage earners pay about 65% of ALL income tax.. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay next to nothing.. How much MORE "progressive" can you get???

Who Pays Income Taxes?

The new data shows that the top 1 percent of earners (with incomes over $515,371) paid nearly 39 percent of all income taxes, up slightly from the previous tax year’s 37 percent share. The amount of taxes paid in this percentile is nearly twice as much their adjusted gross income (AGI) load.

The top 10 percent of earners bore responsibility for 70 percent of all income taxes paid – up slightly from 2016 – while half of all tax filers paid 97 percent of all income tax revenue. Indicating the degree of progressivity in the code, the bottom 50 percent of earners took home 11 percent of total nationwide income while owing 3 percent of all income taxes.

Now -- if you're saying your saying the MIDDLE class need to contribute more (and even at 25% most of them WOULD be) -- you're probably right.. Because there's 30 times MORE of them than the 1% at the top and that makes a BIGGER difference than hiking taxes on the 1%....



In the chart above,

Yes I am saying that the middle class would need to contribute more. Upwards to 25% or so. Like I said above in my previous post, all people who earn an income would pay a flat tax rate along with an addition step/progressive tax % in addition to that based on the income bracket.

Well they'd pretty HAVE TO with all the free stuff you want to guarantee.. In even MODERATELY socialist countries the taxes on middle class, their middle class is carrying the BULK of the taxes.. Because of all the free stuff and benefits... Norway Sweden top rate is in the 50 to 60% range.. But the BIG DIFF is this.....

This chart shows WHERE that highest tax rate kicks in as a MULTIPLE of the "average income"... Folks in those moderate socialist countries get hit with the WORST BRACKET for being just 50% more than the average..

THAT better bring some REALLY REALLY REALLY good services to the middle class in return... Or there would be revolts.. Doesn't even cover their high VAT taxes..

But STILL -- you're not changing "the income gap"... Which is what you set out to do... You've just created monstrous, unfriendly, uncompassionate, one size fits all "programs" for healthcare for everyone.. But the POOR still are poor...

The only other country that I have experience living in and being part of it's culture is Norway. I can't adapt Norway's welfare state to the US exactly because of different variables but there are ways to utilize our collective wealth as a nation and create social programs that can benefit all citizens. It does work in Norway and people are generally very happy with the services for what they pay in taxation but again, the culture is different and the mindset is different which is another point I am trying to make here. We have the collective wealth generated in this country's capitalistic system to create social programs that are "free", but the American mindset is not one of doing what's best for all it's doing what's best for me, and that is the biggest barrier to any collective investment project in my opinion.

The people of Norway, and the people of this country are in no way the same. What works somewhere else won't nessesarily work here because of the people factor involved.

This country is in a constant state of class warfare, jealousy, idolization, greed, racism, reverse racism, lazyness, playing the system's, exploitation, exploiting the system's, hate, radicalism, extremism, lifestyles, spoiled rotteness, entitled etc.

It's amazing we can keep it together as good as we do really. If God was to turn his head away, we would be finished.

 

[beagle9]

he poor pay less overall and the rich pay more overall and so eventually creating a smaller gap between the two in my opinion but still allowing for a relatively high standard of living for all.

We're already there... The top 5% of wage earners pay about 65% of ALL income tax.. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay next to nothing.. How much MORE "progressive" can you get???

Who Pays Income Taxes?

The new data shows that the top 1 percent of earners (with incomes over $515,371) paid nearly 39 percent of all income taxes, up slightly from the previous tax year’s 37 percent share. The amount of taxes paid in this percentile is nearly twice as much their adjusted gross income (AGI) load.

The top 10 percent of earners bore responsibility for 70 percent of all income taxes paid – up slightly from 2016 – while half of all tax filers paid 97 percent of all income tax revenue. Indicating the degree of progressivity in the code, the bottom 50 percent of earners took home 11 percent of total nationwide income while owing 3 percent of all income taxes.

Now -- if you're saying your saying the MIDDLE class need to contribute more (and even at 25% most of them WOULD be) -- you're probably right.. Because there's 30 times MORE of them than the 1% at the top and that makes a BIGGER difference than hiking taxes on the 1%....



In the chart above,

Yes I am saying that the middle class would need to contribute more. Upwards to 25% or so. Like I said above in my previous post, all people who earn an income would pay a flat tax rate along with an addition step/progressive tax % in addition to that based on the income bracket.

Well they'd pretty HAVE TO with all the free stuff you want to guarantee.. In even MODERATELY socialist countries the taxes on middle class, their middle class is carrying the BULK of the taxes.. Because of all the free stuff and benefits... Norway Sweden top rate is in the 50 to 60% range.. But the BIG DIFF is this.....

This chart shows WHERE that highest tax rate kicks in as a MULTIPLE of the "average income"... Folks in those moderate socialist countries get hit with the WORST BRACKET for being just 50% more than the average..

THAT better bring some REALLY REALLY REALLY good services to the middle class in return... Or there would be revolts.. Doesn't even cover their high VAT taxes..

But STILL -- you're not changing "the income gap"... Which is what you set out to do... You've just created monstrous, unfriendly, uncompassionate, one size fits all "programs" for healthcare for everyone.. But the POOR still are poor...

The only other country that I have experience living in and being part of it's culture is Norway. I can't adapt Norway's welfare state to the US exactly because of different variables but there are ways to utilize our collective wealth as a nation and create social programs that can benefit all citizens. It does work in Norway and people are generally very happy with the services for what they pay in taxation but again, the culture is different and the mindset is different which is another point I am trying to make here. We have the collective wealth generated in this country's capitalistic system to create social programs that are "free", but the American mindset is not one of doing what's best for all it's doing what's best for me, and that is the biggest barrier to any collective investment project in my opinion.

no thanks collectivism advances underachievers (lazy ass pieces of shit) to an equal status

Gives them a chance, but do they take advantage of it when it is given to them ???

Some do, but it's not something you change the entire merit system over. Some soft program's to help out is one thing, but to go full on stupid in trying to think that everyone is a victim by someone else's hand, otherwise to purposely make them that way is an outlandish lunatic way of thinking.

We have to put a stop to the insanity, and keep the merit system in play always, and then make sure that it isn't being set up to leave open doors to devils that will waltz right on in to reek chaos and havoc once on the inside. It has nothing to do with whether a person has to jump through liberal hoops in order to get a job, but more so about a person's character, work ethic, physical abilities if required, and personality. Unless trying to be a rocket scientist, engineer, or intelectual scholar, then 90% of the jobs can be transcribed or be made to fit the majority of Americans who want to work.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

What I am mainly focusing on is the aspects of individualism that yields itself to value the success of the individual above all else. That there can only be one winner.

The 1st sentence there is what I just addressed... To fix poverty, you DO most of the time have to change the "individualism" of the afflicted... If you've EVER TRIED to help by coaching GED or working Head Start as I have, you'd understand that.. There needs to be a buy-in from the AFFLICTED individual to work towards better "work preparedness" so that they contribute MORE to society than they take.

The 2nd sentence is a very bad misconception.. Rich people haven't EVER stole anything from me.. Not Bill Gates, not Serena Williams, not my Supermarket chain.. WHO exactly is STEALING from you? Money is NOT LIMITED.. When the economy GROWS, more people benefit. It is NOT a fixed pie for 300 million people to fight over...

The largest employer in the country is SMALL BUSINESS.. That's your hair shop, your gym, your tire store or gas station.. Are THEY stealing from you??? They do what they can to pay fair wages according to the SKILLS of the workforce.. There are some waitresses making MORE than "average" American salaries for instance..

This concept that "there is only one winner" is some kind of bad indoctrination disease that you've gotten from somewhere. Businesses START every day to serve the public.,. And they only start because SOMEONE took the RISK to do that. You don't LIKE RISK... There's that word again.. And some have to fail.. But the WINNERS all have a history of being losers.. But most eventually hit on a good or service that makes them LOTS of money.

I agree about point #1. It's why i've emphasized culture change being vital to these ideas to potentially work.

Your second point is confusing though. I have not mentioned yet in this entire topic anything about rich people stealing, so i'm not sure how that relates to my second sentence which was entered on the attitude that many people have which is that winning is the top priority. As for the "one winner" comment the best example I can give is with sports, and in turn what is taught to millions of children (for this example ages up until puberty) through sports, and that is that there can only be one winner. You play to win. Win at all costs in may cases. If you don't win you lost. If you don't score you are slumping or not trying hard enough. Kids are taught these as values growing up and they contribute to idea that everything is a competition and that you can only succeed if you play to win. They grow up and then apply that same value to business in many ways and in turn teach it to their kids once they become adults.

I use this example because youth sports to me is a great example of how culture can change (in my personal opinion for the better) by making it less about individual achievement but more about collective enjoyment of sport. Same would go for life and business in my opinion after that. A person that is raised to fight and win, to beat the other person, to beat the other business, to see compromise and collaboration as weakness, to see someone less successful and associate their personal value as an American or even as a person to that to me that person is an example of a culture that is hostile to progress and togetherness.

Keep in mind I am not saying that there aren't lazy people or moochers on this planet and in this country, there are, but for many people raised in America if you aren't winning by a certain age or if you see not shot at winning then you have no shot at happiness or success and so what's the point? they give up. It's like how many people here view success and happiness as driving a Mercedes and getting that big title they've worked 20 years for, and that's normal in this country, would you agree? Whereas there are other people, admittedly me, that sees a Mercedes and a big title and it does nothing for me. On a personal note success and happiness to me is my little house, a great husband and cycling partner, my cuddly dog, morning coffee, cool co-workers, and weekly game night with friends. I work at my church and do interior design on the side and my husband has a small business as a carpenter. There are many people in this country that would look at us and wonder why we aren't trying to do more, to move up in our jobs, to grow our business, to get a bigger house, to have two cars instead of sharing our one because as a kid that's what you are taught in most households. Culture starts like that, and that's where it would need to start for the future in my opinion.

When a kid is raised to see something like healthcare as something that affects every American equally and that we are all part of the system and that our health isn't dependent on how much we win in life then you will see changes happen. Participating in our healthcare system through income taxes and sales taxes and so one will be viewed as an investment in our country's future as Americans and not as something that is to be thought of as having money taken from me to pay for slackers. We would be raised to believe that we are all in this together. Yes, I know that sounds naive on the surface, but culture takes time, and we got to our current system because of that too so it's not impossible.

In other words you use the educational system and youth sports to attack and destroy the culture funding both and you do it by turning their kids into your acolytes.
Could even Stalin have come up with a more devious plan?

No that's not what I am saying or implying. This is not a communistic plot. Capitalism does not require a person to be cruel, to be all about winning, to value title, money, and success above all things. When it comes to youth sports it should be about togetherness, sportsmanship, and most of all, fun. Just like sports, life and work should also share many of those traits. You don't rid yourself of ambition or even competitiveness, i'm not saying that, but having that success or even the fun be at the expense of someone else is a toxic aspect of culture in my opinion and it's a part of American culture in many way. You can train to win, you can study to do well, you can work hard to reach a goal, those are things that absolutely are human traits and create good things from, but it can't just be about you and the goal shouldn't be to never look behind you to help someone else move forward.

Im glad you enjoy puttering around your church and carpentry and all. But the necessary corollary is "and you pay for my healthcare so I can cuddle my dog and live the good old simple life". Nope. Pay for your own.

You rightly target culture though at least. Politics is the tool to hide the war on our culture and nation.

I'm not asking for you to pay for my healthcare while I cuddle with my dog. We all invest into the system and we all benefit from it.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

he poor pay less overall and the rich pay more overall and so eventually creating a smaller gap between the two in my opinion but still allowing for a relatively high standard of living for all.

We're already there... The top 5% of wage earners pay about 65% of ALL income tax.. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay next to nothing.. How much MORE "progressive" can you get???

Who Pays Income Taxes?

The new data shows that the top 1 percent of earners (with incomes over $515,371) paid nearly 39 percent of all income taxes, up slightly from the previous tax year’s 37 percent share. The amount of taxes paid in this percentile is nearly twice as much their adjusted gross income (AGI) load.

The top 10 percent of earners bore responsibility for 70 percent of all income taxes paid – up slightly from 2016 – while half of all tax filers paid 97 percent of all income tax revenue. Indicating the degree of progressivity in the code, the bottom 50 percent of earners took home 11 percent of total nationwide income while owing 3 percent of all income taxes.

Now -- if you're saying your saying the MIDDLE class need to contribute more (and even at 25% most of them WOULD be) -- you're probably right.. Because there's 30 times MORE of them than the 1% at the top and that makes a BIGGER difference than hiking taxes on the 1%....



In the chart above,

Yes I am saying that the middle class would need to contribute more. Upwards to 25% or so. Like I said above in my previous post, all people who earn an income would pay a flat tax rate along with an addition step/progressive tax % in addition to that based on the income bracket.

Well they'd pretty HAVE TO with all the free stuff you want to guarantee.. In even MODERATELY socialist countries the taxes on middle class, their middle class is carrying the BULK of the taxes.. Because of all the free stuff and benefits... Norway Sweden top rate is in the 50 to 60% range.. But the BIG DIFF is this.....

This chart shows WHERE that highest tax rate kicks in as a MULTIPLE of the "average income"... Folks in those moderate socialist countries get hit with the WORST BRACKET for being just 50% more than the average..

THAT better bring some REALLY REALLY REALLY good services to the middle class in return... Or there would be revolts.. Doesn't even cover their high VAT taxes..

But STILL -- you're not changing "the income gap"... Which is what you set out to do... You've just created monstrous, unfriendly, uncompassionate, one size fits all "programs" for healthcare for everyone.. But the POOR still are poor...

The only other country that I have experience living in and being part of it's culture is Norway. I can't adapt Norway's welfare state to the US exactly because of different variables but there are ways to utilize our collective wealth as a nation and create social programs that can benefit all citizens. It does work in Norway and people are generally very happy with the services for what they pay in taxation but again, the culture is different and the mindset is different which is another point I am trying to make here. We have the collective wealth generated in this country's capitalistic system to create social programs that are "free", but the American mindset is not one of doing what's best for all it's doing what's best for me, and that is the biggest barrier to any collective investment project in my opinion.

The people of Norway, and the people of this country are in no way the same. What works somewhere else won't nessesarily work here because of the people factor involved.

This country is in a constant state of class warfare, jealousy, idolization, greed, racism, reverse racism, lazyness, playing the system's, exploitation, exploiting the system's, hate, radicalism, extremism, lifestyles, spoiled rotteness, entitled etc.

It's amazing we can keep it together as good as we do really. If God was to turn his head away, we would be finished.

That's a big part of what I have been saying since my first post. For any real change to happen in this country it would take a very big culture and mindset change.

 

[JustAGuy1]

he poor pay less overall and the rich pay more overall and so eventually creating a smaller gap between the two in my opinion but still allowing for a relatively high standard of living for all.

We're already there... The top 5% of wage earners pay about 65% of ALL income tax.. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay next to nothing.. How much MORE "progressive" can you get???

Who Pays Income Taxes?

The new data shows that the top 1 percent of earners (with incomes over $515,371) paid nearly 39 percent of all income taxes, up slightly from the previous tax year’s 37 percent share. The amount of taxes paid in this percentile is nearly twice as much their adjusted gross income (AGI) load.

The top 10 percent of earners bore responsibility for 70 percent of all income taxes paid – up slightly from 2016 – while half of all tax filers paid 97 percent of all income tax revenue. Indicating the degree of progressivity in the code, the bottom 50 percent of earners took home 11 percent of total nationwide income while owing 3 percent of all income taxes.

Now -- if you're saying your saying the MIDDLE class need to contribute more (and even at 25% most of them WOULD be) -- you're probably right.. Because there's 30 times MORE of them than the 1% at the top and that makes a BIGGER difference than hiking taxes on the 1%....



In the chart above,

Yes I am saying that the middle class would need to contribute more. Upwards to 25% or so. Like I said above in my previous post, all people who earn an income would pay a flat tax rate along with an addition step/progressive tax % in addition to that based on the income bracket.

Well they'd pretty HAVE TO with all the free stuff you want to guarantee.. In even MODERATELY socialist countries the taxes on middle class, their middle class is carrying the BULK of the taxes.. Because of all the free stuff and benefits... Norway Sweden top rate is in the 50 to 60% range.. But the BIG DIFF is this.....

This chart shows WHERE that highest tax rate kicks in as a MULTIPLE of the "average income"... Folks in those moderate socialist countries get hit with the WORST BRACKET for being just 50% more than the average..

THAT better bring some REALLY REALLY REALLY good services to the middle class in return... Or there would be revolts.. Doesn't even cover their high VAT taxes..

But STILL -- you're not changing "the income gap"... Which is what you set out to do... You've just created monstrous, unfriendly, uncompassionate, one size fits all "programs" for healthcare for everyone.. But the POOR still are poor...

The only other country that I have experience living in and being part of it's culture is Norway. I can't adapt Norway's welfare state to the US exactly because of different variables but there are ways to utilize our collective wealth as a nation and create social programs that can benefit all citizens. It does work in Norway and people are generally very happy with the services for what they pay in taxation but again, the culture is different and the mindset is different which is another point I am trying to make here. We have the collective wealth generated in this country's capitalistic system to create social programs that are "free", but the American mindset is not one of doing what's best for all it's doing what's best for me, and that is the biggest barrier to any collective investment project in my opinion.

SPOT ON. Again, cultural values. We're infected with this cowboy/TV western/pioneer "individual" mentality in a world that left that need behind many generations ago. That and the isolation of one's personal cell with one's personal TV, have cost us the 'town square/community' instinct, and it's unnatural for a social animal, and that repression brings consequences. Kind of what I was illustrating in 232.

Commodity fetishism cannot help but lead to that. We call ourselves a land of religious freedom yet there is absolutely a state religion which is relentlessly preached and pounded and enforced, and that is the Religion of Money.

We get it kid, you are too lazy to feed, clothe, and pay for insurance for your own family. Welcome to
Darwinism, now die.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

No I don't think children should be taught to strive for mediocrity or not to strive to improve and wallow in failure. I'm also not promoting communism and have stated several times now that I am a capitalist it's just I'd like to see our collective capitalistic wealth be used in a more compassion way and in ways that benefit all that invest in the success of our society and our country in order to improve our collective well being. As for children in my personal opinion a small child doesn't need to be taught to be cutthroat or to be all about winning and all about themselves. If children were taught to simply have fun and to take joy in the happiness of others then perhaps as they become teenagers and then adults that same mindset would still exist as they become leaders of this country's future.

Oh? Wasn't it you who lamented "So for example in the United States we push kids at a young age want to be the best,"

Being the best obviously is something you object to, better to strive for mediocrity.

And you are not a capitalist, That you fail to grasp the meaning of the words you use does not alter those words.

Capitalism, a system where the means of production are controlled by private individuals along with strong support for property rights.

Socialism, the stage of Communism where the state or central authority controls the means of production for the good of the collective subjects of that state. A centrally planned and managed economy.

"Collective wealth" is just another term for socialism. If you want to see the "compassion" of the system you advocate, just look to Cuba. The fact is that when people have plenty they tend to be generous and magnanimous. When people suffer deprivation under "collective poverty" they tend to go into survival mode. We are the greatest country on earth because we honor and promote achievement. You Communists want to change that.

We do push kids at a young age to be the best and in many ways that is a message that can do more harm than good for young kids in my opinion. For sports, young kids, and when I say young I really mean any age before puberty, the goal should be all about fun, camaraderie, fundamentals, and sportsmanship. Kids in that a age range don't need to worry about being first, winning it all, getting the trophy, being the best on the team and things like that in my opinion. That's not pushing mediocrity it's just pushing good values and good fun. School is similar. Young kids, and in this case I mean kids in pre-k and elementary school to just before middle school, don't need to have any pressure or stress to get A's or to be scared that a test could derail their future years down the road in high school. We are burning young kids out in sports and we are stressing kids out in school in my opinion.

As for the capitalism argument I am for private businesses, i'm for private property, and i'm for free markets. My main point is using capitalism to help fund programs that benefit all Americans. We don't flinch at tax dollars being used on an interstate but we call for civil war if there is a hint of tax dollars being used to help keep people healthy at a reasonable cost. We come together in hard times as a country but two things that affect all of us during our lifetime, education and healthcare, are off limits when it comes to coming together. Why is that?

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

To be fair i'm not a tax expert and so the exact number would need to be analyzed, but I think a good starting point would be at least 25% personal income tax regardless of income.

Obama already looked into this. If you raised the income tax to 99% on the 'rich' it would only cover the current deficit with no money left over for your FREE stuff or future cost increases. Start over your idea is DOA.

I'm not talking about raising the income tax on the rich to 99% to fund it. That doesn't work and it's disingenuous. I have said several times now that it would be an investment made by all Americans. All incomes would be taxed a higher base percentage and then after that a step tax for each income range would have an additional % on top of the base rate. If you are rich you may very well get close to 50% or higher when it's all said and done, but all incomes would contribute including the entire middle class, they'd have to, because with that investment all would have access and all would be paying into the same system. If the CEO pays into and uses the same healthcare as their front line employee for example then both would have an equal desire and buy-in to see that system succeed in my opinion.

 

[BluesLegend]

To be fair i'm not a tax expert and so the exact number would need to be analyzed, but I think a good starting point would be at least 25% personal income tax regardless of income.

Obama already looked into this. If you raised the income tax to 99% on the 'rich' it would only cover the current deficit with no money left over for your FREE stuff or future cost increases. Start over your idea is DOA.

I'm not talking about raising the income tax on the rich to 99% to fund it. That doesn't work and it's disingenuous. I have said several times now that it would be an investment made by all Americans. All incomes would be taxed a higher base percentage and then after that a step tax for each income range would have an additional % on top of the base rate. If you are rich you may very well get close to 50% or higher when it's all said and done, but all incomes would contribute including the entire middle class, they'd have to, because with that investment all would have access and all would be paying into the same system. If the CEO pays into and uses the same healthcare as their front line employee for example then both would have an equal desire and buy-in to see that system succeed in my opinion.

Go ahead try to convince the middle class tax INCREASES are good for them. Good luck with that.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

To be fair i'm not a tax expert and so the exact number would need to be analyzed, but I think a good starting point would be at least 25% personal income tax regardless of income.

Obama already looked into this. If you raised the income tax to 99% on the 'rich' it would only cover the current deficit with no money left over for your FREE stuff or future cost increases. Start over your idea is DOA.

I'm not talking about raising the income tax on the rich to 99% to fund it. That doesn't work and it's disingenuous. I have said several times now that it would be an investment made by all Americans. All incomes would be taxed a higher base percentage and then after that a step tax for each income range would have an additional % on top of the base rate. If you are rich you may very well get close to 50% or higher when it's all said and done, but all incomes would contribute including the entire middle class, they'd have to, because with that investment all would have access and all would be paying into the same system. If the CEO pays into and uses the same healthcare as their front line employee for example then both would have an equal desire and buy-in to see that system succeed in my opinion.

Go ahead try to convince the middle class tax INCREASES are good for them. Good luck with that.

I know that it wouldn't happen anytime soon. Our society is not ready for that sort of cultural change.

 

[beagle9]

We're already there... The top 5% of wage earners pay about 65% of ALL income tax.. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay next to nothing.. How much MORE "progressive" can you get???

Who Pays Income Taxes?

The new data shows that the top 1 percent of earners (with incomes over $515,371) paid nearly 39 percent of all income taxes, up slightly from the previous tax year’s 37 percent share. The amount of taxes paid in this percentile is nearly twice as much their adjusted gross income (AGI) load.

The top 10 percent of earners bore responsibility for 70 percent of all income taxes paid – up slightly from 2016 – while half of all tax filers paid 97 percent of all income tax revenue. Indicating the degree of progressivity in the code, the bottom 50 percent of earners took home 11 percent of total nationwide income while owing 3 percent of all income taxes.

Now -- if you're saying your saying the MIDDLE class need to contribute more (and even at 25% most of them WOULD be) -- you're probably right.. Because there's 30 times MORE of them than the 1% at the top and that makes a BIGGER difference than hiking taxes on the 1%....



In the chart above,

Yes I am saying that the middle class would need to contribute more. Upwards to 25% or so. Like I said above in my previous post, all people who earn an income would pay a flat tax rate along with an addition step/progressive tax % in addition to that based on the income bracket.

Well they'd pretty HAVE TO with all the free stuff you want to guarantee.. In even MODERATELY socialist countries the taxes on middle class, their middle class is carrying the BULK of the taxes.. Because of all the free stuff and benefits... Norway Sweden top rate is in the 50 to 60% range.. But the BIG DIFF is this.....

This chart shows WHERE that highest tax rate kicks in as a MULTIPLE of the "average income"... Folks in those moderate socialist countries get hit with the WORST BRACKET for being just 50% more than the average..

THAT better bring some REALLY REALLY REALLY good services to the middle class in return... Or there would be revolts.. Doesn't even cover their high VAT taxes..

But STILL -- you're not changing "the income gap"... Which is what you set out to do... You've just created monstrous, unfriendly, uncompassionate, one size fits all "programs" for healthcare for everyone.. But the POOR still are poor...

The only other country that I have experience living in and being part of it's culture is Norway. I can't adapt Norway's welfare state to the US exactly because of different variables but there are ways to utilize our collective wealth as a nation and create social programs that can benefit all citizens. It does work in Norway and people are generally very happy with the services for what they pay in taxation but again, the culture is different and the mindset is different which is another point I am trying to make here. We have the collective wealth generated in this country's capitalistic system to create social programs that are "free", but the American mindset is not one of doing what's best for all it's doing what's best for me, and that is the biggest barrier to any collective investment project in my opinion.

The people of Norway, and the people of this country are in no way the same. What works somewhere else won't nessesarily work here because of the people factor involved.

This country is in a constant state of class warfare, jealousy, idolization, greed, racism, reverse racism, lazyness, playing the system's, exploitation, exploiting the system's, hate, radicalism, extremism, lifestyles, spoiled rotteness, entitled etc.

It's amazing we can keep it together as good as we do really. If God was to turn his head away, we would be finished.

That's a big part of what I have been saying since my first post. For any real change to happen in this country it would take a very big culture and mindset change.

No, you want to enhance or double down on what has been going on by securing the financial services needed for people to be any of the problems in which people decide to be in their lives. The merit system is a way to force people to do better, and to act accordingly if they want to secure their incomes, and build upon their financial wealth and security in life. Any other way breeds dependency, and that's just not the way to go

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

Yes I am saying that the middle class would need to contribute more. Upwards to 25% or so. Like I said above in my previous post, all people who earn an income would pay a flat tax rate along with an addition step/progressive tax % in addition to that based on the income bracket.

Well they'd pretty HAVE TO with all the free stuff you want to guarantee.. In even MODERATELY socialist countries the taxes on middle class, their middle class is carrying the BULK of the taxes.. Because of all the free stuff and benefits... Norway Sweden top rate is in the 50 to 60% range.. But the BIG DIFF is this.....

This chart shows WHERE that highest tax rate kicks in as a MULTIPLE of the "average income"... Folks in those moderate socialist countries get hit with the WORST BRACKET for being just 50% more than the average..

THAT better bring some REALLY REALLY REALLY good services to the middle class in return... Or there would be revolts.. Doesn't even cover their high VAT taxes..

But STILL -- you're not changing "the income gap"... Which is what you set out to do... You've just created monstrous, unfriendly, uncompassionate, one size fits all "programs" for healthcare for everyone.. But the POOR still are poor...

The only other country that I have experience living in and being part of it's culture is Norway. I can't adapt Norway's welfare state to the US exactly because of different variables but there are ways to utilize our collective wealth as a nation and create social programs that can benefit all citizens. It does work in Norway and people are generally very happy with the services for what they pay in taxation but again, the culture is different and the mindset is different which is another point I am trying to make here. We have the collective wealth generated in this country's capitalistic system to create social programs that are "free", but the American mindset is not one of doing what's best for all it's doing what's best for me, and that is the biggest barrier to any collective investment project in my opinion.

The people of Norway, and the people of this country are in no way the same. What works somewhere else won't nessesarily work here because of the people factor involved.

This country is in a constant state of class warfare, jealousy, idolization, greed, racism, reverse racism, lazyness, playing the system's, exploitation, exploiting the system's, hate, radicalism, extremism, lifestyles, spoiled rotteness, entitled etc.

It's amazing we can keep it together as good as we do really. If God was to turn his head away, we would be finished.

That's a big part of what I have been saying since my first post. For any real change to happen in this country it would take a very big culture and mindset change.

No, you want to enhance or double down on what has been going on by securing the financial services needed for people to be any of the problems in which people decide to be in their lives. The merit system is a way to force people to do better, and to act accordingly if they want to secure their incomes, and build upon their financial wealth and security in life. Any other way breeds dependency, and that's just not the way to go

No i'm sorry but that's not what I am trying to do or advocate for. It's ok to reward hard work, i'm not saying otherwise, but what I am saying is that in America the concept of individualism drives our culture, and so in this case individual wealth secures your (or your immediate family's) security in life and that is the only concern of the individual. Anything that might reduce your potential wealth to help another American is often times looked down upon or even condemned outright while also labeling, insulting and so on shaming the idea and the person that could possibly be helped. I am not talking about taking your money from you and giving it literally to someone else. That would fail and that would potentially create dependency. When I am talking about investing into a system I mean just that, we all invest our tax dollars into a system that we all have access to and would benefit from.

 

[beagle9]

To be fair i'm not a tax expert and so the exact number would need to be analyzed, but I think a good starting point would be at least 25% personal income tax regardless of income.

Obama already looked into this. If you raised the income tax to 99% on the 'rich' it would only cover the current deficit with no money left over for your FREE stuff or future cost increases. Start over your idea is DOA.

I'm not talking about raising the income tax on the rich to 99% to fund it. That doesn't work and it's disingenuous. I have said several times now that it would be an investment made by all Americans. All incomes would be taxed a higher base percentage and then after that a step tax for each income range would have an additional % on top of the base rate. If you are rich you may very well get close to 50% or higher when it's all said and done, but all incomes would contribute including the entire middle class, they'd have to, because with that investment all would have access and all would be paying into the same system. If the CEO pays into and uses the same healthcare as their front line employee for example then both would have an equal desire and buy-in to see that system succeed in my opinion.

The bottom line is that you want a way for this government to create a way for all to be secure regardless of their character, and their lazyness if that is the case, and regardless of their attitude's, their outlooks, their choices in life, otherwise just take care of them regardless. Well it doesn't work that way, and people's choices in life, their attitude's, their character's, their outlooks (if are bad ones), should determine their outcomes in life. If they won't listen or listen to instruction in life, then they should not be rewarded from other people's money given them by the government after it was taken from the taxpayers without their complete knowledge of what their money is being used for. Become a good person that is proven by your actions in life, and the doors should swing wide open for you.

No doors should be opened for a bad person who would use their acceptance or given free security as a way to do evil unto themselves, their brothers, and to their sisters afterwards.

 

[beagle9]

Well they'd pretty HAVE TO with all the free stuff you want to guarantee.. In even MODERATELY socialist countries the taxes on middle class, their middle class is carrying the BULK of the taxes.. Because of all the free stuff and benefits... Norway Sweden top rate is in the 50 to 60% range.. But the BIG DIFF is this.....

This chart shows WHERE that highest tax rate kicks in as a MULTIPLE of the "average income"... Folks in those moderate socialist countries get hit with the WORST BRACKET for being just 50% more than the average..

THAT better bring some REALLY REALLY REALLY good services to the middle class in return... Or there would be revolts.. Doesn't even cover their high VAT taxes..

But STILL -- you're not changing "the income gap"... Which is what you set out to do... You've just created monstrous, unfriendly, uncompassionate, one size fits all "programs" for healthcare for everyone.. But the POOR still are poor...

The only other country that I have experience living in and being part of it's culture is Norway. I can't adapt Norway's welfare state to the US exactly because of different variables but there are ways to utilize our collective wealth as a nation and create social programs that can benefit all citizens. It does work in Norway and people are generally very happy with the services for what they pay in taxation but again, the culture is different and the mindset is different which is another point I am trying to make here. We have the collective wealth generated in this country's capitalistic system to create social programs that are "free", but the American mindset is not one of doing what's best for all it's doing what's best for me, and that is the biggest barrier to any collective investment project in my opinion.

The people of Norway, and the people of this country are in no way the same. What works somewhere else won't nessesarily work here because of the people factor involved.

This country is in a constant state of class warfare, jealousy, idolization, greed, racism, reverse racism, lazyness, playing the system's, exploitation, exploiting the system's, hate, radicalism, extremism, lifestyles, spoiled rotteness, entitled etc.

It's amazing we can keep it together as good as we do really. If God was to turn his head away, we would be finished.

That's a big part of what I have been saying since my first post. For any real change to happen in this country it would take a very big culture and mindset change.

No, you want to enhance or double down on what has been going on by securing the financial services needed for people to be any of the problems in which people decide to be in their lives. The merit system is a way to force people to do better, and to act accordingly if they want to secure their incomes, and build upon their financial wealth and security in life. Any other way breeds dependency, and that's just not the way to go

No i'm sorry but that's not what I am trying to do or advocate for. It's ok to reward hard work, i'm not saying otherwise, but what I am saying is that in America the concept of individualism drives our culture, and so in this case individual wealth secures your (or your immediate family's) security in life and that is the only concern of the individual. Anything that might reduce your potential wealth to help another American is often times looked down upon or even condemned outright while also labeling, insulting and so on shaming the idea and the person that could possibly be helped. I am not talking about taking your money from you and giving it literally to someone else. That would fail and that would potentially create dependency. When I am talking about investing into a system I mean just that, we all invest our tax dollars into a system that we all have access to and would benefit from.

You are worried about people who aren't worried about themselves, and we don't want to support that thinking. We want to make sure that people are forced to recognize their bad choices in life, because those choices won't have a support system that allows for such choices to somehow appear as if they are right when they are absolutely wrong in life. Lazyness is wrong, and it doesn't need a support system funded by the government to say that it's good. See how that works ?

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

The only other country that I have experience living in and being part of it's culture is Norway. I can't adapt Norway's welfare state to the US exactly because of different variables but there are ways to utilize our collective wealth as a nation and create social programs that can benefit all citizens. It does work in Norway and people are generally very happy with the services for what they pay in taxation but again, the culture is different and the mindset is different which is another point I am trying to make here. We have the collective wealth generated in this country's capitalistic system to create social programs that are "free", but the American mindset is not one of doing what's best for all it's doing what's best for me, and that is the biggest barrier to any collective investment project in my opinion.

The people of Norway, and the people of this country are in no way the same. What works somewhere else won't nessesarily work here because of the people factor involved.

This country is in a constant state of class warfare, jealousy, idolization, greed, racism, reverse racism, lazyness, playing the system's, exploitation, exploiting the system's, hate, radicalism, extremism, lifestyles, spoiled rotteness, entitled etc.

It's amazing we can keep it together as good as we do really. If God was to turn his head away, we would be finished.

That's a big part of what I have been saying since my first post. For any real change to happen in this country it would take a very big culture and mindset change.

No, you want to enhance or double down on what has been going on by securing the financial services needed for people to be any of the problems in which people decide to be in their lives. The merit system is a way to force people to do better, and to act accordingly if they want to secure their incomes, and build upon their financial wealth and security in life. Any other way breeds dependency, and that's just not the way to go

No i'm sorry but that's not what I am trying to do or advocate for. It's ok to reward hard work, i'm not saying otherwise, but what I am saying is that in America the concept of individualism drives our culture, and so in this case individual wealth secures your (or your immediate family's) security in life and that is the only concern of the individual. Anything that might reduce your potential wealth to help another American is often times looked down upon or even condemned outright while also labeling, insulting and so on shaming the idea and the person that could possibly be helped. I am not talking about taking your money from you and giving it literally to someone else. That would fail and that would potentially create dependency. When I am talking about investing into a system I mean just that, we all invest our tax dollars into a system that we all have access to and would benefit from.

You are worried about people who aren't worried about themselves, and we don't want to support that thinking. We want to make sure that people are forced to recognize their bad choices in life, because those choices won't have a support system that allows for such choices to somehow appear as if they are right when they are absolutely wrong in life. Lazyness is wrong, and it doesn't need a support system funded by the government to say that it's good. See how that works ?

There are millions of people who are not lazy that struggle daily. Add in potential medical costs or the unrealistic option of higher education and the stressors can be almost palpable for people. It's not right to assume just because someone isn't secure in their financial wealth or that they can't afford something that you can that they are lazy.

 

[beagle9]

The people of Norway, and the people of this country are in no way the same. What works somewhere else won't nessesarily work here because of the people factor involved.

This country is in a constant state of class warfare, jealousy, idolization, greed, racism, reverse racism, lazyness, playing the system's, exploitation, exploiting the system's, hate, radicalism, extremism, lifestyles, spoiled rotteness, entitled etc.

It's amazing we can keep it together as good as we do really. If God was to turn his head away, we would be finished.

That's a big part of what I have been saying since my first post. For any real change to happen in this country it would take a very big culture and mindset change.

No, you want to enhance or double down on what has been going on by securing the financial services needed for people to be any of the problems in which people decide to be in their lives. The merit system is a way to force people to do better, and to act accordingly if they want to secure their incomes, and build upon their financial wealth and security in life. Any other way breeds dependency, and that's just not the way to go

No i'm sorry but that's not what I am trying to do or advocate for. It's ok to reward hard work, i'm not saying otherwise, but what I am saying is that in America the concept of individualism drives our culture, and so in this case individual wealth secures your (or your immediate family's) security in life and that is the only concern of the individual. Anything that might reduce your potential wealth to help another American is often times looked down upon or even condemned outright while also labeling, insulting and so on shaming the idea and the person that could possibly be helped. I am not talking about taking your money from you and giving it literally to someone else. That would fail and that would potentially create dependency. When I am talking about investing into a system I mean just that, we all invest our tax dollars into a system that we all have access to and would benefit from.

You are worried about people who aren't worried about themselves, and we don't want to support that thinking. We want to make sure that people are forced to recognize their bad choices in life, because those choices won't have a support system that allows for such choices to somehow appear as if they are right when they are absolutely wrong in life. Lazyness is wrong, and it doesn't need a support system funded by the government to say that it's good. See how that works ?

There are millions of people who are not lazy that struggle daily. Add in potential medical costs or the unrealistic option of higher education and the stressors can be almost palpable for people. It's not right to assume just because someone isn't secure in their financial wealth or that they can't afford something that you can that they are lazy.

It isn't fair for you to assume that everyone is a victim that should be taken care of by the government at the taxpayers expense. The evaluation of human beings is a complicated one, and it should be left to those who have experience in this stuff for hundreds of years.

Do gooder hippies can't do it, and they cause more trouble than the law allows when they try.