Middle class could face higher taxes under Republican plan, analysis finds

[Conservative]

It is one thing to be a troll.

It is another to be an ignorant troll.

Are you disputing the Tax Foundation report, or any facts contained therein? If not, you're clearly the troll on this thread. The facts, as they stand, demonstrate that the GOP plan will significantly raise taxes on the middle class, while drastically reducing taxes on those who make $1,000,000 or more.

It also seems that ignorance is your forte.

Facts? The "fact" is that the Democrats who made this report up ASSUMED to know what the GOP tax proposals would encompass. All the Tax Foundation report states is IF the tax proposals were carried out as the Democrats have ASSUMED then taxes would go up on the Middle Class. That doesn't mean that there actually IS a GOP plan that does that...it just means that the Democrats who made this report were able to formulate a GOP plan that did.

that simple explanation is too complicated for people like Dickless ****.

 

[DiamondDave]

I guess Dick Tuck has no more smoke to deploy

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm middle to lower class in the income brackets in NYC. You truly have no point. You can not even debate, you only know how to inject snarky sarcasm that you probably think makes you look smart.
When it only really makes you look like a smart ass troll that has no point.


Explain how the plan raises my taxes.

Well I've been told that people such as yourself who make up the lower middle class are the one who are "not sacrificing enough". Dave told me that. Good news though. The republican plan will broaden and flatten the tax base to ensure people such as yourself are able to pay more in taxes and get yourself on the fast track to prosperity.

OK, you didn't answer the question. And Dave did not say that. He is talking about the 46% of people that pay no federal income tax at all. I happen to work and pay taxes, therefore I am contributing.

I agree with Dave. If nearly half the population is paying nothing into the system and the rest are being asked to dish out even more to meet short falls, where is the equality in this? The answer; there is n't any. It's the same thing as SS, medicare, etc...these programs take from some for the direct benefit of others. under our laws, this is unconstitutional in practice. It literally breaches the general welfare clause of the constitution.

And you still haven't answered my question.

Hey, you don't need to justify your beliefs. Just don't pretend like you don't support politicians who plan to "fix" the country by raising taxes on the poorest among us. All you're doing each time you try and justify yourself is further reinforce the very point of this thread. That Cons believe in raising taxes on the people who "don't pay", ie. the poor and lower middle class.

 

[RDD_1210]

Again.. basic needs for you are YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.. not the responsibility of others... and whether you struggle to meet them, or work 3 jobs to overcome them to gain a little extra, or have an easy time meeting them is of NO CONSEQUENCE....

Because the MINUTE you start bringing in your subjective views of fairness that you tie to them, you bring in unequal treatment, pandering, and selective inequality to make up for it all, of course at the expense of others who you FEEL can benefit you

Nothing about what I said is subjective or unequal. All humans have the same basic needs. All people are subjected to the same tax rates. Even if we did a completely flat tax with only an exception on the first say $20,000 to allow for people to pay for basic needs (food, shelter, healthcare), you would still have a problem with it, because your SUBJECTIVE opinion of equal would see that those people who earn less than $20,000 a year are getting off easy. So yeah, once again, you're an idiot who can't think in anything but Fox News talking points.

Yes.. it is subjective.. because you consider the situation and weigh feeling about fairness because of how subjectively difficult it could be or whatever

A tax floor is a disguised progressive tax system which is by definition unequal treatment.. sorry.. and this has been shown to you before...

Subtracting the first 20K of income means: (assuming a 10% tax rate for ease)
Someone earning 19K pays ZERO % on all income
Someone earning 30K pays 3.3% on all income
Someone earning 50K pays 6% on all income
Someone earning 100K pays 8% on all income
Someone earning 1M pays 9.8% on all income

See... a disguised graduated tax.. no dice... not equal treatment by government under law

Equal is equal... unequal is unequal..

So it's the percentage that you care about? Why not say, everyone pays the same x% above $20k? That keeps it "equal" for everyone except for those who truly need assistance.

 

[DiamondDave]

Nothing about what I said is subjective or unequal. All humans have the same basic needs. All people are subjected to the same tax rates. Even if we did a completely flat tax with only an exception on the first say $20,000 to allow for people to pay for basic needs (food, shelter, healthcare), you would still have a problem with it, because your SUBJECTIVE opinion of equal would see that those people who earn less than $20,000 a year are getting off easy. So yeah, once again, you're an idiot who can't think in anything but Fox News talking points.

Yes.. it is subjective.. because you consider the situation and weigh feeling about fairness because of how subjectively difficult it could be or whatever

A tax floor is a disguised progressive tax system which is by definition unequal treatment.. sorry.. and this has been shown to you before...

Subtracting the first 20K of income means: (assuming a 10% tax rate for ease)
Someone earning 19K pays ZERO % on all income
Someone earning 30K pays 3.3% on all income
Someone earning 50K pays 6% on all income
Someone earning 100K pays 8% on all income
Someone earning 1M pays 9.8% on all income

See... a disguised graduated tax.. no dice... not equal treatment by government under law

Equal is equal... unequal is unequal..

So it's the percentage that you care about? Why not say, everyone pays the same x% above $20k? That keeps it "equal" for everyone except for those who truly need assistance.

Because you are excluding income based subjectively on a 'fairness' criteria for 'need'... you are not treating all income from every citizen equally.. inherently and by definition it is UNEQUAL treatment in order to obtain a progressive system that is unbalanced to those who you FEEL deserve to pay more than others

As I showed you... it is no different from any other progressive system for selective unequal treatment... no loopholes means no loopholes, not just the one you like because it benefits you or your cause more than those you feel are more undeserving

 

[Dick Tuck]

You sell something, you are earning income from it.... you continue living in the house your father was in or your husband was in, you are not GAINING anything... you don't live in that house and you get it and you sell it, then you are gaining SOMETHING... keeping an asset in family is not gaining... now if the asset is given or 'sold' to someone outside the family, that is someone else gaining (unless it is something like a charitable donation)

But what if you sell that house, car, stock portfolio, etc. the day after you inherit it? Should there then be zero gain? That's pretty special treatment you're asking for.

As for charity, under your plan, nothing would be no charitable deductions from other income, so again, you're now adding another special class.

You're also saying that tariffs and other excise taxes shouldn't be considered a special class, in spite of the fact that the government can pick and choose what to tax. But that's fine. I gather you'd support a luxury tax then. How about homes with over 3,000 sq/ft and boats greater than 26' and cars that get less than 25 mpg?

I specifically addressed that... if you inherit something and you decide you do not want it, and you sell it for whatever... THEN it is income...

Just because you get no charitable deductions does not mean people will not donate to charity.. and when you donate something, you are not deriving income from it, hence you are not taxed for it... if you wish to discuss taxing charitable organizations, that is a whole other can of worms and a debate on whether they are doing it for 'gain' or whatever...

I addressed the excise tax in terms of how it is applied... I do not believe in a national sales tax... but you see what I mean (I hope) that an excise tax on Gas (for example) is taxed for every unit at the same rate without subjective criteria on whether the customer earns X amount or X+60 amount

I support no luxury tax... for it creates criteria based on a value and treats things of the same type differently... if you sales tax a rowboat that costs $300 at 5%, you best sales tax the yacht that costs $10MIL at the same 5%

I hate to do this, but have to give you kudos on a consistent position. I disagree with you, but at least you're not picking and choosing who gets special treatment.

The only place where I would differ is a fundamental belief that some progressiveness in our income tax system is fair, based on how some are able to leverage public services for greater wealth. But even there, my argument becomes somewhat weaker if things like capital gains are treated like ordinary income.

Practically, it's never going to happen. There's too much vested interest in keeping the status quo, and it's not being driven by the lowest quintile. So from a pragmatic perspective, the only reasonable solution that has a prayer, is to raise taxes on those in the upper brackets. They'll keep their capital gains, dividend, and interest breaks. And since that's going to be the case, things like mortgage interest deductions and employer payed health insurance, ought to have some similar breaks. Otherwise, what we're going to see, is essentially what the OP article speaks of, i.e. more tax cuts for the top brackets, on the backs of the middle class.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes.. it is subjective.. because you consider the situation and weigh feeling about fairness because of how subjectively difficult it could be or whatever

A tax floor is a disguised progressive tax system which is by definition unequal treatment.. sorry.. and this has been shown to you before...

Subtracting the first 20K of income means: (assuming a 10% tax rate for ease)
Someone earning 19K pays ZERO % on all income
Someone earning 30K pays 3.3% on all income
Someone earning 50K pays 6% on all income
Someone earning 100K pays 8% on all income
Someone earning 1M pays 9.8% on all income

See... a disguised graduated tax.. no dice... not equal treatment by government under law

Equal is equal... unequal is unequal..

So it's the percentage that you care about? Why not say, everyone pays the same x% above $20k? That keeps it "equal" for everyone except for those who truly need assistance.

Because you are excluding income based subjectively on a 'fairness' criteria for 'need'... you are not treating all income from every citizen equally.. inherently and by definition it is UNEQUAL treatment in order to obtain a progressive system that is unbalanced to those who you FEEL deserve to pay more than others

As I showed you... it is no different from any other progressive system for selective unequal treatment... no loopholes means no loopholes, not just the one you like because it benefits you or your cause more than those you feel are more undeserving

LOL, like I thought. You don't care about anything but ensuring that the poor stay poor. Thanks for proving my point multiple times over.

When you can show me how basic needs are "subjective" then you'll have a point. But you can't, so you don't.

Looks like you lose this argument, again.

 

[Dick Tuck]

It is one thing to be a troll.

It is another to be an ignorant troll.

Are you disputing the Tax Foundation report, or any facts contained therein? If not, you're clearly the troll on this thread. The facts, as they stand, demonstrate that the GOP plan will significantly raise taxes on the middle class, while drastically reducing taxes on those who make $1,000,000 or more.

It also seems that ignorance is your forte.

Facts? The "fact" is that the Democrats who made this report up ASSUMED to know what the GOP tax proposals would encompass. All the Tax Foundation report states is IF the tax proposals were carried out as the Democrats have ASSUMED then taxes would go up on the Middle Class. That doesn't mean that there actually IS a GOP plan that does that...it just means that the Democrats who made this report were able to formulate a GOP plan that did.

Which one was explicitly denied by the GOP? Both Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney have similar tax cuts, and claim that they'll be paid by eliminating some deductions. What deductions could possibly make up for the shortfall of the tax rate cuts they're proposing.

The only non-denial denial is that neither Ryan, Romney, nor GOP leadership will tell us what exactly the cuts are.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And therefore the senate democrats report is built on false notions. They have not released which loop holes and deductions will go in. There fore this is a complete NONstory. It's a fabrication to make a point and push and agenda. And you progressive LOLberals fell right in it both feet. then claimed it is us who support things that work against us. mean while, your "team" is feeding you fabrications that you trumpet as truths.

Nice work on being gullible partisan fodder.

 

[DiamondDave]

But what if you sell that house, car, stock portfolio, etc. the day after you inherit it? Should there then be zero gain? That's pretty special treatment you're asking for.

As for charity, under your plan, nothing would be no charitable deductions from other income, so again, you're now adding another special class.

You're also saying that tariffs and other excise taxes shouldn't be considered a special class, in spite of the fact that the government can pick and choose what to tax. But that's fine. I gather you'd support a luxury tax then. How about homes with over 3,000 sq/ft and boats greater than 26' and cars that get less than 25 mpg?

I specifically addressed that... if you inherit something and you decide you do not want it, and you sell it for whatever... THEN it is income...

Just because you get no charitable deductions does not mean people will not donate to charity.. and when you donate something, you are not deriving income from it, hence you are not taxed for it... if you wish to discuss taxing charitable organizations, that is a whole other can of worms and a debate on whether they are doing it for 'gain' or whatever...

I addressed the excise tax in terms of how it is applied... I do not believe in a national sales tax... but you see what I mean (I hope) that an excise tax on Gas (for example) is taxed for every unit at the same rate without subjective criteria on whether the customer earns X amount or X+60 amount

I support no luxury tax... for it creates criteria based on a value and treats things of the same type differently... if you sales tax a rowboat that costs $300 at 5%, you best sales tax the yacht that costs $10MIL at the same 5%

I hate to do this, but have to give you kudos on a consistent position. I disagree with you, but at least you're not picking and choosing who gets special treatment.

The only place where I would differ is a fundamental belief that some progressiveness in our income tax system is fair, based on how some are able to leverage public services for greater wealth. But even there, my argument becomes somewhat weaker if things like capital gains are treated like ordinary income.

Practically, it's never going to happen. There's too much vested interest in keeping the status quo, and it's not being driven by the lowest quintile. So from a pragmatic perspective, the only reasonable solution that has a prayer, is to raise taxes on those in the upper brackets. They'll keep their capital gains, dividend, and interest breaks. And since that's going to be the case, things like mortgage interest deductions and employer payed health insurance, ought to have some similar breaks. Otherwise, what we're going to see, is essentially what the OP article speaks of, i.e. more tax cuts for the top brackets, on the backs of the middle class.

Fair is entirely subjective.. and by nature open for corruption and pandering

And that corruption and pandering, as well as the lust for power in government, is why there is opposition

 

[RDD_1210]

And therefore the senate democrats report is built on false notions. They have not released which loop holes and deductions will go in. There fore this is a complete NONstory. It's a fabrication to make a point and push and agenda. And you progressive LOLberals fell right in it both feet. then claimed it is us who support things that work against us. mean while, your "team" is feeding you fabrications that you trumpet as truths.

Nice work on being gullible partisan fodder.

Nice job supporting people who want to make you poorer. Baaaaaa says the sheep.

 

[DiamondDave]

So it's the percentage that you care about? Why not say, everyone pays the same x% above $20k? That keeps it "equal" for everyone except for those who truly need assistance.

Because you are excluding income based subjectively on a 'fairness' criteria for 'need'... you are not treating all income from every citizen equally.. inherently and by definition it is UNEQUAL treatment in order to obtain a progressive system that is unbalanced to those who you FEEL deserve to pay more than others

As I showed you... it is no different from any other progressive system for selective unequal treatment... no loopholes means no loopholes, not just the one you like because it benefits you or your cause more than those you feel are more undeserving

LOL, like I thought. You don't care about anything but ensuring that the poor stay poor. Thanks for proving my point multiple times over.

When you can show me how basic needs are "subjective" then you'll have a point. But you can't, so you don't.

Looks like you lose this argument, again.

Really?? I fully support the poor having the freedom to work their way up.. gain from their efforts and ideas... No entitlement ensures poor will not stay poor.. .No entitlement advances the poor out of being poor

Your criteria of need is subjective in nature... and your assumption that others are responsible for your need is bogus..

I have lost no argument... you have shown quite clearly that equality means nothing to you.. unless you only scream for it in an arena that you want... and you clearly show that equality for others out of your sphere means nothing when you can gain something at their expense

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You must be really this mindless in real life. That's sad. Sorry about your special Ed. Do you need a helmet for walking too?

 

[RDD_1210]

Because you are excluding income based subjectively on a 'fairness' criteria for 'need'... you are not treating all income from every citizen equally.. inherently and by definition it is UNEQUAL treatment in order to obtain a progressive system that is unbalanced to those who you FEEL deserve to pay more than others

As I showed you... it is no different from any other progressive system for selective unequal treatment... no loopholes means no loopholes, not just the one you like because it benefits you or your cause more than those you feel are more undeserving

LOL, like I thought. You don't care about anything but ensuring that the poor stay poor. Thanks for proving my point multiple times over.

When you can show me how basic needs are "subjective" then you'll have a point. But you can't, so you don't.

Looks like you lose this argument, again.

Really?? I fully support the poor having the freedom to work their way up.. gain from their efforts and ideas... No entitlement ensures poor will not stay poor

False. Show where this theory has worked.

.. .No entitlement advances the poor out of being poor

Wrong again.

Your criteria of need is subjective in nature.

Still waiting for you to explain how the basic needs of food, shelter and healthcare are "subjective". The reason that you can't explain this is the reason that your entire theory is flawed.

 

[RDD_1210]

You must be really this mindless in real life. That's sad. Sorry about your special Ed. Do you need a helmet for walking too?

Why are you lower middle class? Is it because you're lazy? If you only actually applied yourself and stopped being lazy you wouldn't be closer to poor than you are to being rich.

Do I have the conservative talking points correct?

 

[DiamondDave]

LOL, like I thought. You don't care about anything but ensuring that the poor stay poor. Thanks for proving my point multiple times over.

When you can show me how basic needs are "subjective" then you'll have a point. But you can't, so you don't.

Looks like you lose this argument, again.

Really?? I fully support the poor having the freedom to work their way up.. gain from their efforts and ideas... No entitlement ensures poor will not stay poor

False. Show where this theory has worked.

.. .No entitlement advances the poor out of being poor

Wrong again.

Your criteria of need is subjective in nature.

Still waiting for you to explain how the basic needs of food, shelter and healthcare are "subjective". The reason that you can't explain this is the reason that your entire theory is flawed.

1) It is NOT false.... I fully support people working and either succeeding or failing all on their own... if you think the poor cannot or do not work their way out of situations in many cases, you are sadly mistaken... I for one came from a family situation where meat money was obtained by collecting cans and bottles to turn in for recycling money... where an entire back yard was used for the growing of food to eat and o preserve for use during the non harvesting months... I worked from the earliest I could.. mowing lawns and cleaning yards when under age, and working 35 hours a week during school, and working 2 jobs when I attended college and before I joined the military, and did everything I could along the way to get to an upper 5% income... work brings success, choices bring success, effort brings success, not handouts

2) It is NOT wrong... NO entitlement lifts out the poor... the more money thrown into entitlement systems, the more we have in entitlement systems... it is a cycle of ensuring poverty and promoting laziness when basic needs are thought to be owed to you simply for your existence

3) You CRITERIA for need is subjective.... and you cannot grasp that you are responsible for meeting your needs, no matter how hard it is to do so, or how easy... it is not owed to you, nor should you get special treatment for it being difficult... your personal situation is your personal situation... you wish a pass based on that subjective criteria.. I wish for equal and blind treatment of all regardless of circumstance

 

[RDD_1210]

Really?? I fully support the poor having the freedom to work their way up.. gain from their efforts and ideas... No entitlement ensures poor will not stay poor

False. Show where this theory has worked.


Wrong again.

Your criteria of need is subjective in nature.

Still waiting for you to explain how the basic needs of food, shelter and healthcare are "subjective". The reason that you can't explain this is the reason that your entire theory is flawed.

1) It is NOT false.... I fully support people working and either succeeding or failing all on their own... if you think the poor cannot or do not work their way out of situations in many cases, you are sadly mistaken... I for one came from a family situation where meat money was obtained by collecting cans and bottles to turn in for recycling money... where an entire back yard was used for the growing of food to eat and o preserve for use during the non harvesting months... I worked from the earliest I could.. mowing lawns and cleaning yards when under age, and working 35 hours a week during school, and working 2 jobs when I attended college and before I joined the military, and did everything I could along the way to get to an upper 5% income... work brings success, choices bring success, effort brings success, not handouts

2) It is NOT wrong... NO entitlement lifts out the poor... the more money thrown into entitlement systems, the more we have in entitlement systems... it is a cycle of ensuring poverty and promoting laziness when basic needs are thought to be owed to you simply for your existence

3) You CRITERIA for need is subjective.... and you cannot grasp that you are responsible for meeting your needs, no matter how hard it is to do so, or how easy... it is not owed to you, nor should you get special treatment for it being difficult... your personal situation is your personal situation... you wish a pass based on that subjective criteria.. I wish for equal and blind treatment of all regardless of circumstance

Still waiting for you to explain how the basic needs of food, shelter and healthcare are "subjective". The reason that you can't explain this is the reason that your entire theory is flawed.

 

[DiamondDave]

False. Show where this theory has worked.


Wrong again.



Still waiting for you to explain how the basic needs of food, shelter and healthcare are "subjective". The reason that you can't explain this is the reason that your entire theory is flawed.

1) It is NOT false.... I fully support people working and either succeeding or failing all on their own... if you think the poor cannot or do not work their way out of situations in many cases, you are sadly mistaken... I for one came from a family situation where meat money was obtained by collecting cans and bottles to turn in for recycling money... where an entire back yard was used for the growing of food to eat and o preserve for use during the non harvesting months... I worked from the earliest I could.. mowing lawns and cleaning yards when under age, and working 35 hours a week during school, and working 2 jobs when I attended college and before I joined the military, and did everything I could along the way to get to an upper 5% income... work brings success, choices bring success, effort brings success, not handouts

2) It is NOT wrong... NO entitlement lifts out the poor... the more money thrown into entitlement systems, the more we have in entitlement systems... it is a cycle of ensuring poverty and promoting laziness when basic needs are thought to be owed to you simply for your existence

3) You CRITERIA for need is subjective.... and you cannot grasp that you are responsible for meeting your needs, no matter how hard it is to do so, or how easy... it is not owed to you, nor should you get special treatment for it being difficult... your personal situation is your personal situation... you wish a pass based on that subjective criteria.. I wish for equal and blind treatment of all regardless of circumstance

Still waiting for you to explain how the basic needs of food, shelter and healthcare are "subjective". The reason that you can't explain this is the reason that your entire theory is flawed.

Your CRITERIA for NEED is subjective.... and even if you need 2000 calories, a roof, and a source of water, it is not owed to you... nor is it to derive benefit because you barely do enough (or do nothing) to obtain it... Is your need for $1000 a month for rent different than Joe Blow in Bald Knob Arkansas and his need for $200 a month for rent? Is it different than Joe Schmoe in South Dakota who lives in a cabin that he built? Is your need for food different because you go to Harris Teeter to get it than it is for Joe Schmoe who grows and harvests his? Not to mention entitlements that are not needs. Not to mention that many can and do provide for their basic needs on little to no income. Not to mention that some with no bills thrive on lower incomes and some who have spent beyond means have a hard time surviving on high incomes.... Situations are ALL different... and you subjectively lump or categorize based on your subjective criteria... and this is unequal treatment based on your feeling or perception...

This subjectivity is why we have corruption and pandering... and it has brought us to the fucked up situation we are in today...

 

[RDD_1210]

1) It is NOT false.... I fully support people working and either succeeding or failing all on their own... if you think the poor cannot or do not work their way out of situations in many cases, you are sadly mistaken... I for one came from a family situation where meat money was obtained by collecting cans and bottles to turn in for recycling money... where an entire back yard was used for the growing of food to eat and o preserve for use during the non harvesting months... I worked from the earliest I could.. mowing lawns and cleaning yards when under age, and working 35 hours a week during school, and working 2 jobs when I attended college and before I joined the military, and did everything I could along the way to get to an upper 5% income... work brings success, choices bring success, effort brings success, not handouts

2) It is NOT wrong... NO entitlement lifts out the poor... the more money thrown into entitlement systems, the more we have in entitlement systems... it is a cycle of ensuring poverty and promoting laziness when basic needs are thought to be owed to you simply for your existence

3) You CRITERIA for need is subjective.... and you cannot grasp that you are responsible for meeting your needs, no matter how hard it is to do so, or how easy... it is not owed to you, nor should you get special treatment for it being difficult... your personal situation is your personal situation... you wish a pass based on that subjective criteria.. I wish for equal and blind treatment of all regardless of circumstance

Still waiting for you to explain how the basic needs of food, shelter and healthcare are "subjective". The reason that you can't explain this is the reason that your entire theory is flawed.

Your CRITERIA for NEED is subjective.... and even if you need 2000 calories, a roof, and a source of water, it is not owed to you... nor is it to derive benefit because you barely do enough (or do nothing) to obtain it... Is your need for $1000 a month for rent different than Joe Blow in Bald Knob Arkansas and his need for $200 a month for rent? Is it different than Joe Schmoe in South Dakota who lives in a cabin that he built? Is your need for food different because you go to Harris Teeter to get it than it is for Joe Schmoe who grows and harvests his? Not to mention entitlements that are not needs. Not to mention that many can and do provide for their basic needs on little to no income. Not to mention that some with no bills thrive on lower incomes and some who have spent beyond means have a hard time surviving on high incomes.... Situations are ALL different... and you subjectively lump or categorize based on your subjective criteria... and this is unequal treatment based on your feeling or perception...

This subjectivity is why we have corruption and pandering... and it has brought us to the fucked up situation we are in today...

That's a lot of text that answers nothing. Needs are not subjective. Like I said. Food, shelter and healthcare are not subjective needs. And in this country those things ARE owed to its citizens. Those are the basics. I'm not talking about entitlements or whatever other bullshit tangent you're trying to detour towards. Basic needs ARE guaranteed in this country, sorry you don't agree with that comrade.

Maybe you should find a society that fits better with your idea of equal. Know of any? Of course you don't.

 

[DiamondDave]

Still waiting for you to explain how the basic needs of food, shelter and healthcare are "subjective". The reason that you can't explain this is the reason that your entire theory is flawed.

Your CRITERIA for NEED is subjective.... and even if you need 2000 calories, a roof, and a source of water, it is not owed to you... nor is it to derive benefit because you barely do enough (or do nothing) to obtain it... Is your need for $1000 a month for rent different than Joe Blow in Bald Knob Arkansas and his need for $200 a month for rent? Is it different than Joe Schmoe in South Dakota who lives in a cabin that he built? Is your need for food different because you go to Harris Teeter to get it than it is for Joe Schmoe who grows and harvests his? Not to mention entitlements that are not needs. Not to mention that many can and do provide for their basic needs on little to no income. Not to mention that some with no bills thrive on lower incomes and some who have spent beyond means have a hard time surviving on high incomes.... Situations are ALL different... and you subjectively lump or categorize based on your subjective criteria... and this is unequal treatment based on your feeling or perception...

This subjectivity is why we have corruption and pandering... and it has brought us to the fucked up situation we are in today...

That's a lot of text that answers nothing. Needs are not subjective. Like I said. Food, shelter and healthcare are not subjective needs. And in this country those things ARE owed to its citizens. Those are the basics. I'm not talking about entitlements or whatever other bullshit tangent you're trying to detour towards. Basic needs ARE guaranteed in this country, sorry you don't agree with that comrade.

Maybe you should find a society that fits better with your idea of equal. Know of any? Of course you don't.

What is needed by person X in situation Y in location Z is indeed SUBJECTIVE... and nothing takes away from the fact that you are indeed responsible for it, no matter how hard it is... and you are not owed benefit because of how hard it is for you

What is OWED to this country's citizens is the protection of freedoms and the equality in treatment.. your sustenance is not OWED to you, your basic personal needs are not owed to you.. you owe them to yourself and those who are in your family who need your support (children)