Trump lies shamelessly about his tax-cut plan.

[jc456]

You're the kind that thinks giving someone through social welfare something they didn't earn and at a level more than they could if they worked is an incentive for them to get a job.

You're the kind that thought Obama being black was a qualification.

You're the last one to talk about low intelligence.

A single mother that works at Walmart making twenty grand a year gets the EITC, a child care tax credit, and food stamps. She does not want to work additional hours, she does not want to advance and the reason has nothing to do with her GETTING THOSE BENEFITS. The problem, for every additional dollar she could make she pays taxes and she loses benefits. When the dust settles, well she gets to keep FIFTEEN FAWKING CENTS on the dollar. That's an 85% marginal tax rate.

So here is the deal, if you expect those single mothers to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" while facing an 85% marginal tax rate then you should have no problem whatsoever with a 45% tax rate for the wealthy.

Feeble attempt bud....You're either desperately confused and self manipulated or you're just plain stupid.
You describe problems within our welfare system...this has little to do with tax code....but you're kinda right....Guadalupe and ShaQuita with four babies and three baby daddy's should not receive the amount of welfare benefits they do as there is no incentive for them to work more and earn more through employment. Can't wait for Donny T to get in there and start his welfare reform...it's gonna get good...grab your popcorn....haha

The lack of incentive has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of the benefits and everything to do about the PUNISHMENT of losing those benefits if they would take on additional work. Hell, the 85% rate was conservative. In some cases, it can exceed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Honestly, it takes a totally hypocritical DIPSHIT to advocate cutting taxes on the wealthy because it will spur them to invest and ignore the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by the poor.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN

so where are the fathers?

Most of the time, why they are living right there in the same household. But talk about a "marriage penalty". Or maybe it's not a single mom, maybe it is a couple with a stay at home mom. Why should she go to work, she only gets fifteen cents on the dollar and it cost more than that for daycare. Working is a losing proposition.

too funny!!!! what do you think most of us did and do? both parents work.

 

[Winston]

A single mother that works at Walmart making twenty grand a year gets the EITC, a child care tax credit, and food stamps. She does not want to work additional hours, she does not want to advance and the reason has nothing to do with her GETTING THOSE BENEFITS. The problem, for every additional dollar she could make she pays taxes and she loses benefits. When the dust settles, well she gets to keep FIFTEEN FAWKING CENTS on the dollar. That's an 85% marginal tax rate.

So here is the deal, if you expect those single mothers to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" while facing an 85% marginal tax rate then you should have no problem whatsoever with a 45% tax rate for the wealthy.

Feeble attempt bud....You're either desperately confused and self manipulated or you're just plain stupid.
You describe problems within our welfare system...this has little to do with tax code....but you're kinda right....Guadalupe and ShaQuita with four babies and three baby daddy's should not receive the amount of welfare benefits they do as there is no incentive for them to work more and earn more through employment. Can't wait for Donny T to get in there and start his welfare reform...it's gonna get good...grab your popcorn....haha

The lack of incentive has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of the benefits and everything to do about the PUNISHMENT of losing those benefits if they would take on additional work. Hell, the 85% rate was conservative. In some cases, it can exceed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Honestly, it takes a totally hypocritical DIPSHIT to advocate cutting taxes on the wealthy because it will spur them to invest and ignore the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by the poor.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN

so where are the fathers?

Most of the time, why they are living right there in the same household. But talk about a "marriage penalty". Or maybe it's not a single mom, maybe it is a couple with a stay at home mom. Why should she go to work, she only gets fifteen cents on the dollar and it cost more than that for daycare. Working is a losing proposition.

too funny!!!! what do you think most of us did and do? both parents work.

Yeah, how has that been working out for you? Twenty something males that would rather play video games than work while living at home in Mom and Dad's basement. That extra income made by two parents working is usually pissed away. From my experience, children with a stay at home parent, rather the father or the mother, have a distinct competitive advantage that eclipses any monetary benefits of that additional income.

 

[Winston]

And I notice nobody has even attempted to touch the loss of the step-up. The Waltons get to pass their wealth on to the next generation without an estate tax while Joe Smith faces a six figure capital gain by simply inheriting his parents modest home. When the middle class has "friends" like Trump who needs enemies.

 

[jc456]

Feeble attempt bud....You're either desperately confused and self manipulated or you're just plain stupid.
You describe problems within our welfare system...this has little to do with tax code....but you're kinda right....Guadalupe and ShaQuita with four babies and three baby daddy's should not receive the amount of welfare benefits they do as there is no incentive for them to work more and earn more through employment. Can't wait for Donny T to get in there and start his welfare reform...it's gonna get good...grab your popcorn....haha

The lack of incentive has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of the benefits and everything to do about the PUNISHMENT of losing those benefits if they would take on additional work. Hell, the 85% rate was conservative. In some cases, it can exceed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Honestly, it takes a totally hypocritical DIPSHIT to advocate cutting taxes on the wealthy because it will spur them to invest and ignore the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by the poor.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN

so where are the fathers?

Most of the time, why they are living right there in the same household. But talk about a "marriage penalty". Or maybe it's not a single mom, maybe it is a couple with a stay at home mom. Why should she go to work, she only gets fifteen cents on the dollar and it cost more than that for daycare. Working is a losing proposition.

too funny!!!! what do you think most of us did and do? both parents work.

Yeah, how has that been working out for you? Twenty something males that would rather play video games than work while living at home in Mom and Dad's basement. That extra income made by two parents working is usually pissed away. From my experience, children with a stay at home parent, rather the father or the mother, have a distinct competitive advantage that eclipses any monetary benefits of that additional income.

well I'm happy for you. that isn't mine. I believe in community. I hand out to who I want and I don't take handouts. I have what I like, and that is giving most of my earnings toward my immediate family. Maybe you have others living with you. I like a roof, food, transportation. I have to earn money to get all that. It isn't free. you think it is. too bad, it isn't everyone else's

 

[jc456]

And I notice nobody has even attempted to touch the loss of the step-up. The Waltons get to pass their wealth on to the next generation without an estate tax while Joe Smith faces a six figure capital gain by simply inheriting his parents modest home. When the middle class has "friends" like Trump who needs enemies.

yep, why should they pay taxes on money already taxed? give us your explanation.

 

[Geaux4it]

Trump wants a plan that lowers his taxes.

Here's the question:

whose taxes should be raised to replace the revenue lost when Trump's taxes go down?

Have you seen the summary of the plan? Our standard (married filing jointly) deduction doubles.

I'll take it

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Claims that he, and other rich will not benefit from his tax-cut...while it does EVERYTHING to benefit them:

1. removing inheritance tax.
2. Removes Alternate Minimum tax
3. pass through business income top bracket cut from 39 to just 20%
4. Top personal income rate from 39 to 35%
5. Corporate tax rate cut from 35% to 20%

This all adds up to a HUGE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH and Trump personally with not a single idea on how to pay for all that.

And then he tops it off with "Belive me!"...what the fuck is wrong with him and how can his supporters stand by him when he pretty much spits in their face like that and calls them too stupid to know better.

Analysis | Tax reform is ‘not good for me, believe me,’ Trump said. Don’t.

But it benefits the majority of the middle class...

As long as I get mine, I could care less who else benefits

-Geaux

You do realise that giving tax cuts while driving up the national debt has consequences that aren't beneficial to you?
8. United States of America

• National Debt: $19.23 trillion (USD)
• Debt per Capita: $61,231 (USD)
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: 106.1%
• Population: 324.35 million
• Currency: US Dollar

The United States is the world’s largest economy and it also has the highest level of national debt. While its national debt levels exceed the country’s GDP in 2017, in 2007, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was at just 62.5%. The U.S. government spends around 6% of its annual budget just repaying the interest payments on its debt, which significantly reduces the amount of money available to pay for other programs. In order to repay such a massive debt, the government could decrease spending, which could impede economic growth, or increase taxes to raise revenue.
So you might not care who benefits from tax cuts, but maybe you should. I personally don't think it a bad idea to tax people who can afford to pay the increase.

After 8 years of Obama, I'm immune to increases of the debt. In this case, its for a good cause.

-Geaux

I disagree that enriching the 1% while screwing over the working class is a "good cause".

That the right wants to do that and is even looking forward to digging deeper for the ultra-rich shows what we all know - the gop/Repubs/RWs are for tax and spend.

Example: has anyone said where the money will come from for pino trump's idiotic wall?

.

How exactly is this plan 'screwing over the working class' as you say?

-Geaux

 

[Luddly Neddite]

He's also been saying that cutting taxes for the wealthy will result in jobs but as has been pointed out, we are at full employment now so he really can't assume anything of the kind.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Claims that he, and other rich will not benefit from his tax-cut...while it does EVERYTHING to benefit them:

1. removing inheritance tax.
2. Removes Alternate Minimum tax
3. pass through business income top bracket cut from 39 to just 20%
4. Top personal income rate from 39 to 35%
5. Corporate tax rate cut from 35% to 20%

This all adds up to a HUGE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH and Trump personally with not a single idea on how to pay for all that.

And then he tops it off with "Belive me!"...what the fuck is wrong with him and how can his supporters stand by him when he pretty much spits in their face like that and calls them too stupid to know better.

Analysis | Tax reform is ‘not good for me, believe me,’ Trump said. Don’t.

/----/ make sure you send your tax cut back to Washington.

 

[BrokeLoser]

You're the kind that thinks giving someone through social welfare something they didn't earn and at a level more than they could if they worked is an incentive for them to get a job.

You're the kind that thought Obama being black was a qualification.

You're the last one to talk about low intelligence.

A single mother that works at Walmart making twenty grand a year gets the EITC, a child care tax credit, and food stamps. She does not want to work additional hours, she does not want to advance and the reason has nothing to do with her GETTING THOSE BENEFITS. The problem, for every additional dollar she could make she pays taxes and she loses benefits. When the dust settles, well she gets to keep FIFTEEN FAWKING CENTS on the dollar. That's an 85% marginal tax rate.

So here is the deal, if you expect those single mothers to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" while facing an 85% marginal tax rate then you should have no problem whatsoever with a 45% tax rate for the wealthy.

Feeble attempt bud....You're either desperately confused and self manipulated or you're just plain stupid.
You describe problems within our welfare system...this has little to do with tax code....but you're kinda right....Guadalupe and ShaQuita with four babies and three baby daddy's should not receive the amount of welfare benefits they do as there is no incentive for them to work more and earn more through employment. Can't wait for Donny T to get in there and start his welfare reform...it's gonna get good...grab your popcorn....haha

The lack of incentive has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of the benefits and everything to do about the PUNISHMENT of losing those benefits if they would take on additional work. Hell, the 85% rate was conservative. In some cases, it can exceed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Honestly, it takes a totally hypocritical DIPSHIT to advocate cutting taxes on the wealthy because it will spur them to invest and ignore the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by the poor.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN

Again...you're in the wrong thread. You have an issue with the welfare system...not tax code...you're trying your best to get lost in the arithmetic by tying the two together...that's what LefTards do, they love confusion.
Using your flawed theory:
Guadalupe enjoys a negative effective tax rate on the first 20k she earns...on the next 5k she earns she may pay as much as an 85% effective rate due to the effect the extra income has on her overall welfare benefits. This is a welfare issue. You see, she's overly subsidized by taxpayers to begin with...that's all. Simple shit...allow to be.

Q. Is she subsidized or are Wal-Mart and the Walton Children?

Well, if I had my head in my ass I would say the Waltons are subsidized. Since I do not I'd say Guadalupe applied for and accepted a job knowing it would not pay enough to pay for HER poor decision making. Simple shit for the sane to wrap their head around...you want more....FUCKING DO MORE!
Get educated and get your shit right....don't fuck yourself and American taxpayers and have four babies with three worthless baby daddy's. Follow this simple principle and prevent yourself from becoming a human pet to taxpayers....TA-DA!
What else can I teach you?

 

[Cellblock2429]

He's also been saying that cutting taxes for the wealthy will result in jobs but as has been pointed out, we are at full employment now so he really can't assume anything of the kind.

/-----/ full employment for the obozo economy but not for the rising Trump economy

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Most Left Wing Losers are very envious of successful people who pay the taxes that support the welfare system

Y'all need to get your stories straight:

• Party of the Rich: It is the Democrats
  
• The REAL Party of the Rich Guys: Top Dem Donors Have Outspent Top GOP Donors by $486
  
• 3 of the top 5 richest men in Congress are democrats.
  
• Who do rich liberals who made their riches from free market system condemn it?
  
• New England is rich – so why does it vote Democrat?
  
• Which Party Is the Party of the 1 Percent?

Just whom might liberals be envying? Themselves?

Yes. The dumb liberal crackpot Democrat Voters hate rich white people, but the Democratic Party is run by rich white people.
Left Wing Voters are ignorant psychos

 

[forkup]

Claims that he, and other rich will not benefit from his tax-cut...while it does EVERYTHING to benefit them:

1. removing inheritance tax.
2. Removes Alternate Minimum tax
3. pass through business income top bracket cut from 39 to just 20%
4. Top personal income rate from 39 to 35%
5. Corporate tax rate cut from 35% to 20%

This all adds up to a HUGE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH and Trump personally with not a single idea on how to pay for all that.

And then he tops it off with "Belive me!"...what the fuck is wrong with him and how can his supporters stand by him when he pretty much spits in their face like that and calls them too stupid to know better.

Analysis | Tax reform is ‘not good for me, believe me,’ Trump said. Don’t.

But it benefits the majority of the middle class...

As long as I get mine, I could care less who else benefits

-Geaux

You do realise that giving tax cuts while driving up the national debt has consequences that aren't beneficial to you?
8. United States of America

• National Debt: $19.23 trillion (USD)
• Debt per Capita: $61,231 (USD)
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: 106.1%
• Population: 324.35 million
• Currency: US Dollar

The United States is the world’s largest economy and it also has the highest level of national debt. While its national debt levels exceed the country’s GDP in 2017, in 2007, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was at just 62.5%. The U.S. government spends around 6% of its annual budget just repaying the interest payments on its debt, which significantly reduces the amount of money available to pay for other programs. In order to repay such a massive debt, the government could decrease spending, which could impede economic growth, or increase taxes to raise revenue.
So you might not care who benefits from tax cuts, but maybe you should. I personally don't think it a bad idea to tax people who can afford to pay the increase.

After 8 years of Obama, I'm immune to increases of the debt. In this case, its for a good cause.

-Geaux

I disagree that enriching the 1% while screwing over the working class is a "good cause".

That the right wants to do that and is even looking forward to digging deeper for the ultra-rich shows what we all know - the gop/Repubs/RWs are for tax and spend.

Example: has anyone said where the money will come from for pino trump's idiotic wall?

.

How exactly is this plan 'screwing over the working class' as you say?

-Geaux

I think it comes down to the point I was making. It raises the debt, which than is used by Republicans as a reasoning to cut welfare programs. Since having 12 aircraft carriers is vital and having a healthy populace is a luxury, right?

 

[Conservative65]

we don't. so what are you going to do when you don't have the power to do anything? think I should do what you like? hahahahaahaha you are truly silly.

Of course you believe I'm silly, from your level of intelligence I suspect you think a shark attack or a plane crash is silly.

You're the kind that thinks giving someone through social welfare something they didn't earn and at a level more than they could if they worked is an incentive for them to get a job.

You're the kind that thought Obama being black was a qualification.

You're the last one to talk about low intelligence.

What in your opinion is "social welfare"? Can you name some of the programs which can be described as such?

Food stamps (TANF), Section 8/Public Housing, WIC, School lunch program, EITC, Obamacare subsidies, MediCAID. Those are some of the more commonly known ones. Those programs where those doing the getting aren't the ones doing the funding.

I don't consider Social Security/Medicare since one is supposed to have put into the system for a minimum number of years to be eligible. I don't like such programs because I believe people should be able to save/invest how they choose to do so.

Have you ever traveled outside of the United States? I ask this because I have, and I have seen what results from a government which has total disregard for the Social Contract, which IMO and that of many others framed the thinking or our founders as expressed in the Preamble to our Constitution.

People will survive, and will do whatever is necessary to do so; history tell us so.

Those doing the funding benefit when the basic needs of the poor are taken care of via programs you've noted. Putting pathos aside, it is better to feed a person than to suffer the experience of being a victim of crime. It is far more expensive to arrest, detain, adjudicate and punish a thief than it is to feed, educate or train him or her, and to provide equal access and equal opportunities.

What you've seen is people in other countries with the attitude like the freeloaders here that refuse to do for themselves.

The founders didn't frame a Constitution where 1/2 was supposed to support the country so the other half could sit on their asses benefiting from it.

I don't benefit from some freeloader getting something for nothing. If would be to their benefit to not make the choice to be the recipient of what would happen if they decided to steal.

People have equal access and opportunities. Not having the same results doesn't mean they didn't have the chances. That's the automatic belief by you bleeding hearts that think the rest of us should be forced to do what you refuse to do for those YOU claim should get something for nothing. For you to think otherwise would ruin your agenda.

I don't owe someone unwilling to do for themselves a damn thing. If they think stealing from me is their only avenue, I suggest they read the 2nd amendment and my State's code of laws related to the castle doctrine before trying. We've had several instances lately in the State where one of those freeloaders for which you claim to care for tried what you say they will do. It didn't end well for them and no charges were filed against the ones giving them what they deserved.

 

[Conservative65]

Says the one that support social programs causing the poor to remain poor by taking away the incentive to do better.

I do support social programs; you are simply echoing the Right Wing / Callous Conservative meme that they are not only not effective, but that they hurt those the policies were developed to aid.

That's one of the many BIG LIES echoed by the naive and the biddable.

I bet you believe the Republican tax "reform" bill aids the middle class and not the wealthiest Americans.

Americans should have no fear about Communism or Terrorists anymore than they do about stupid people like you voting for self serving pols like Ryan, Trump, McConnell and Tea Party / Freedom Party Caucus Members.

Trickle down never aided the many, and austerity never cured an economic crisis.

we don't. so what are you going to do when you don't have the power to do anything? think I should do what you like? hahahahaahaha you are truly silly.

Of course you believe I'm silly, from your level of intelligence I suspect you think a shark attack or a plane crash is silly.

You're the kind that thinks giving someone through social welfare something they didn't earn and at a level more than they could if they worked is an incentive for them to get a job.

You're the kind that thought Obama being black was a qualification.

You're the last one to talk about low intelligence.

A single mother that works at Walmart making twenty grand a year gets the EITC, a child care tax credit, and food stamps. She does not want to work additional hours, she does not want to advance and the reason has nothing to do with her GETTING THOSE BENEFITS. The problem, for every additional dollar she could make she pays taxes and she loses benefits. When the dust settles, well she gets to keep FIFTEEN FAWKING CENTS on the dollar. That's an 85% marginal tax rate.

So here is the deal, if you expect those single mothers to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" while facing an 85% marginal tax rate then you should have no problem whatsoever with a 45% tax rate for the wealthy.

Just more excuses for that leg spreader that should get the one she let stick it in her and help produce the children you think the rest of us are responsible for supporting help her.

She doesn't have an 85% marginal tax rate. Her income tax liability is zero. If you're going to make up things, at least try to make it realistic.

I expect people pull themselves up because it's the right thing to do. If she wants to be where those of you think should be forced to support her are, it involves wanting to advance and working additional hours. Anyone that doesn't want to do more to do better deserves to be where they are and do without.

 

[Conservative65]

You're the kind that thinks giving someone through social welfare something they didn't earn and at a level more than they could if they worked is an incentive for them to get a job.

You're the kind that thought Obama being black was a qualification.

You're the last one to talk about low intelligence.

A single mother that works at Walmart making twenty grand a year gets the EITC, a child care tax credit, and food stamps. She does not want to work additional hours, she does not want to advance and the reason has nothing to do with her GETTING THOSE BENEFITS. The problem, for every additional dollar she could make she pays taxes and she loses benefits. When the dust settles, well she gets to keep FIFTEEN FAWKING CENTS on the dollar. That's an 85% marginal tax rate.

So here is the deal, if you expect those single mothers to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" while facing an 85% marginal tax rate then you should have no problem whatsoever with a 45% tax rate for the wealthy.

Feeble attempt bud....You're either desperately confused and self manipulated or you're just plain stupid.
You describe problems within our welfare system...this has little to do with tax code....but you're kinda right....Guadalupe and ShaQuita with four babies and three baby daddy's should not receive the amount of welfare benefits they do as there is no incentive for them to work more and earn more through employment. Can't wait for Donny T to get in there and start his welfare reform...it's gonna get good...grab your popcorn....haha

The lack of incentive has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of the benefits and everything to do about the PUNISHMENT of losing those benefits if they would take on additional work. Hell, the 85% rate was conservative. In some cases, it can exceed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Honestly, it takes a totally hypocritical DIPSHIT to advocate cutting taxes on the wealthy because it will spur them to invest and ignore the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by the poor.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN

Again...you're in the wrong thread. You have an issue with the welfare system...not tax code...you're trying your best to get lost in the arithmetic by tying the two together...that's what LefTards do, they love confusion.
Using your flawed theory:
Guadalupe enjoys a negative effective tax rate on the first 20k she earns...on the next 5k she earns she may pay as much as an 85% effective rate due to the effect the extra income has on her overall welfare benefits. This is a welfare issue. You see, she's overly subsidized by taxpayers to begin with...that's all. Simple shit...allow to be.

Q. Is she subsidized or are Wal-Mart and the Walton Children?

She gets the checks. She is the one offering the low skills she's getting overpaid at $7.25/hour. Walmart is required to pay her more than what those skills are worth. In essence, is she gets social welfare and $7.25/hour, she's double dipping.

 

[Conservative65]

You're the kind that thinks giving someone through social welfare something they didn't earn and at a level more than they could if they worked is an incentive for them to get a job.

You're the kind that thought Obama being black was a qualification.

You're the last one to talk about low intelligence.

A single mother that works at Walmart making twenty grand a year gets the EITC, a child care tax credit, and food stamps. She does not want to work additional hours, she does not want to advance and the reason has nothing to do with her GETTING THOSE BENEFITS. The problem, for every additional dollar she could make she pays taxes and she loses benefits. When the dust settles, well she gets to keep FIFTEEN FAWKING CENTS on the dollar. That's an 85% marginal tax rate.

So here is the deal, if you expect those single mothers to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" while facing an 85% marginal tax rate then you should have no problem whatsoever with a 45% tax rate for the wealthy.

Feeble attempt bud....You're either desperately confused and self manipulated or you're just plain stupid.
You describe problems within our welfare system...this has little to do with tax code....but you're kinda right....Guadalupe and ShaQuita with four babies and three baby daddy's should not receive the amount of welfare benefits they do as there is no incentive for them to work more and earn more through employment. Can't wait for Donny T to get in there and start his welfare reform...it's gonna get good...grab your popcorn....haha

The lack of incentive has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of the benefits and everything to do about the PUNISHMENT of losing those benefits if they would take on additional work. Hell, the 85% rate was conservative. In some cases, it can exceed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Honestly, it takes a totally hypocritical DIPSHIT to advocate cutting taxes on the wealthy because it will spur them to invest and ignore the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by the poor.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN

so where are the fathers?

Most of the time, why they are living right there in the same household. But talk about a "marriage penalty". Or maybe it's not a single mom, maybe it is a couple with a stay at home mom. Why should she go to work, she only gets fifteen cents on the dollar and it cost more than that for daycare. Working is a losing proposition.

Her marginal tax rate isn't 85%.

Why aren't the fathers doing their job is they are there? That's because they aren't and it gives you another excuse to say so.

Those of us that made something of ourselves don't owe those that refuse to a damn thing. They aren't my responsibility and if I'm not the one that got the pussy that produced the kids, their kids aren't my responsibility either.

 

[Conservative65]

A single mother that works at Walmart making twenty grand a year gets the EITC, a child care tax credit, and food stamps. She does not want to work additional hours, she does not want to advance and the reason has nothing to do with her GETTING THOSE BENEFITS. The problem, for every additional dollar she could make she pays taxes and she loses benefits. When the dust settles, well she gets to keep FIFTEEN FAWKING CENTS on the dollar. That's an 85% marginal tax rate.

So here is the deal, if you expect those single mothers to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" while facing an 85% marginal tax rate then you should have no problem whatsoever with a 45% tax rate for the wealthy.

Feeble attempt bud....You're either desperately confused and self manipulated or you're just plain stupid.
You describe problems within our welfare system...this has little to do with tax code....but you're kinda right....Guadalupe and ShaQuita with four babies and three baby daddy's should not receive the amount of welfare benefits they do as there is no incentive for them to work more and earn more through employment. Can't wait for Donny T to get in there and start his welfare reform...it's gonna get good...grab your popcorn....haha

The lack of incentive has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of the benefits and everything to do about the PUNISHMENT of losing those benefits if they would take on additional work. Hell, the 85% rate was conservative. In some cases, it can exceed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Honestly, it takes a totally hypocritical DIPSHIT to advocate cutting taxes on the wealthy because it will spur them to invest and ignore the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by the poor.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN

Again...you're in the wrong thread. You have an issue with the welfare system...not tax code...you're trying your best to get lost in the arithmetic by tying the two together...that's what LefTards do, they love confusion.
Using your flawed theory:
Guadalupe enjoys a negative effective tax rate on the first 20k she earns...on the next 5k she earns she may pay as much as an 85% effective rate due to the effect the extra income has on her overall welfare benefits. This is a welfare issue. You see, she's overly subsidized by taxpayers to begin with...that's all. Simple shit...allow to be.

Q. Is she subsidized or are Wal-Mart and the Walton Children?

Well, if I had my head in my ass I would say the Waltons are subsidized. Since I do not I'd say Guadalupe applied for and accepted a job knowing it would not pay enough to pay for HER poor decision making. Simple shit for the sane to wrap their head around...you want more....FUCKING DO MORE!
Get educated and get your shit right....don't fuck yourself and American taxpayers and have four babies with three worthless baby daddy's. Follow this simple principle and prevent yourself from becoming a human pet to taxpayers....TA-DA!
What else can I teach you?

Interesting how those that think freeloaders should get welfare even if working refuse to admit that the person making a low wage is at fault for the low wage because of low skills AND they knew the pay BEFORE they took the job.

I've had people working for me that knew the pay BEFORE they took the job then said when I asked them to do their job to the level it should be done "but you're not paying me but so much". They knew what the job required and the pay before they took it. Since those types offer such low skill sets, they're easy to replace.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Feeble attempt bud....You're either desperately confused and self manipulated or you're just plain stupid.
You describe problems within our welfare system...this has little to do with tax code....but you're kinda right....Guadalupe and ShaQuita with four babies and three baby daddy's should not receive the amount of welfare benefits they do as there is no incentive for them to work more and earn more through employment. Can't wait for Donny T to get in there and start his welfare reform...it's gonna get good...grab your popcorn....haha

The lack of incentive has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of the benefits and everything to do about the PUNISHMENT of losing those benefits if they would take on additional work. Hell, the 85% rate was conservative. In some cases, it can exceed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Honestly, it takes a totally hypocritical DIPSHIT to advocate cutting taxes on the wealthy because it will spur them to invest and ignore the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by the poor.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN

Again...you're in the wrong thread. You have an issue with the welfare system...not tax code...you're trying your best to get lost in the arithmetic by tying the two together...that's what LefTards do, they love confusion.
Using your flawed theory:
Guadalupe enjoys a negative effective tax rate on the first 20k she earns...on the next 5k she earns she may pay as much as an 85% effective rate due to the effect the extra income has on her overall welfare benefits. This is a welfare issue. You see, she's overly subsidized by taxpayers to begin with...that's all. Simple shit...allow to be.

Q. Is she subsidized or are Wal-Mart and the Walton Children?

Well, if I had my head in my ass I would say the Waltons are subsidized. Since I do not I'd say Guadalupe applied for and accepted a job knowing it would not pay enough to pay for HER poor decision making. Simple shit for the sane to wrap their head around...you want more....FUCKING DO MORE!
Get educated and get your shit right....don't fuck yourself and American taxpayers and have four babies with three worthless baby daddy's. Follow this simple principle and prevent yourself from becoming a human pet to taxpayers....TA-DA!
What else can I teach you?

Interesting how those that think freeloaders should get welfare even if working refuse to admit that the person making a low wage is at fault for the low wage because of low skills AND they knew the pay BEFORE they took the job.

I've had people working for me that knew the pay BEFORE they took the job then said when I asked them to do their job to the level it should be done "but you're not paying me but so much". They knew what the job required and the pay before they took it. Since those types offer such low skill sets, they're easy to replace.

Worthless bottom feeders always stand together in their quest for more free shit. These are the same filthy lowlifes that champion the thirdworlders who come here, drop their five silver tooth anchors, take a job at McDonalds because thats all their jibber-jabber speaking asses can qualify to do then whine and bitch about how they need to be paid more. They need others to cover the expenses related to their own poor decision making. "Pay me to be here while I fuck you over and ruin your society"
Makes perfect sense to those backward filthy fucks on the Left.

 

[Conservative65]

The lack of incentive has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of the benefits and everything to do about the PUNISHMENT of losing those benefits if they would take on additional work. Hell, the 85% rate was conservative. In some cases, it can exceed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Honestly, it takes a totally hypocritical DIPSHIT to advocate cutting taxes on the wealthy because it will spur them to invest and ignore the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by the poor.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN

Again...you're in the wrong thread. You have an issue with the welfare system...not tax code...you're trying your best to get lost in the arithmetic by tying the two together...that's what LefTards do, they love confusion.
Using your flawed theory:
Guadalupe enjoys a negative effective tax rate on the first 20k she earns...on the next 5k she earns she may pay as much as an 85% effective rate due to the effect the extra income has on her overall welfare benefits. This is a welfare issue. You see, she's overly subsidized by taxpayers to begin with...that's all. Simple shit...allow to be.

Q. Is she subsidized or are Wal-Mart and the Walton Children?

Well, if I had my head in my ass I would say the Waltons are subsidized. Since I do not I'd say Guadalupe applied for and accepted a job knowing it would not pay enough to pay for HER poor decision making. Simple shit for the sane to wrap their head around...you want more....FUCKING DO MORE!
Get educated and get your shit right....don't fuck yourself and American taxpayers and have four babies with three worthless baby daddy's. Follow this simple principle and prevent yourself from becoming a human pet to taxpayers....TA-DA!
What else can I teach you?

Interesting how those that think freeloaders should get welfare even if working refuse to admit that the person making a low wage is at fault for the low wage because of low skills AND they knew the pay BEFORE they took the job.

I've had people working for me that knew the pay BEFORE they took the job then said when I asked them to do their job to the level it should be done "but you're not paying me but so much". They knew what the job required and the pay before they took it. Since those types offer such low skill sets, they're easy to replace.

Worthless bottom feeders always stand together in their quest for more free shit. These are the same filthy lowlifes that champion the thirdworlders who come here, drop their five silver tooth anchors, take a job at McDonalds because thats all their jibber-jabber speaking asses can qualify to do then whine and bitch about how they need to be paid more. They need others to cover the expenses related to their own poor decision making. "Pay me to be here while I fuck you over and ruin your society"
Makes perfect sense to those backward filthy fucks on the Left.

While I have no problem helping someone that truly can't help themselves or whose choices aren't what put them where they are, that group isn't considered when I post. The ones that are considered are those like you mention that caused their own problems and are where they are because they made bad choices in life. Poor choices on their part don't constitute an emergency on my part nor does it mean I should pay for them when they can't.

I don't have a problem watching someone that made bad choices in life and/or someone who refuses to do for themselves go without.