Why the poor should be taxed more heavily.

[alan1]

It's hard to have a fruitful discussion when you make statements like the one I put in red. I never said anything of the sort, so why did you bring that up and try and attribute it to me?
First you claim I was "bashing the poor", now you this. Neither of which is anything I have said, and you want me to have a "fruitful discussion" with you? I'll have an honest discussion with you when you quite lying.

I never attributed the statement to you. I was speaking in general terms. If it were going to be about you, I'd say you specifically like I did in the first place.

It was quite clear what your intended meaning was.

 

[Modbert]

It was quite clear what your intended meaning was.

Ask anyone who knows me on this board, they will tell you I speak in general terms often. If I was going to say that you believe all poor people are lazy and just want to live off welfare I'd say so straight to your face. I have no problem stating my opinion on here, I think I might have made that quite clear. And, as you just saw, I have no problem admitting when I was wrong.

So are you going to move past that so we can discuss this or no?

 

[alan1]

It was quite clear what your intended meaning was.

Ask anyone who knows me on this board, they will tell you I speak in general terms often. If I was going to say that you believe all poor people are lazy and just want to live off welfare I'd say so straight to your face. I have no problem stating my opinion on here, I think I might have made that quite clear. And, as you just saw, I have no problem admitting when I was wrong.

So are you going to move past that so we can discuss this or no?

I've been on the board long enough to know who you are. It's only been 3 months less than you that I have been here. Your name change has only been in the past few days though.
Happy anniversary btw.

 

[Modbert]

I've been on the board long enough to know who you are. It's only been 3 months less than you that I have been here. Your name change has only been in the past few days though.
Happy anniversary btw.

Thank you, I honestly did not realize I had passed that mark until a few days after.

Also, I only said ask others because I never really had any arguments or anything like that with you persay. Least as far as I can remember, I mean I have plenty of arguments a day. And I'm not sure how often you read threads I'm in, etc.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The sooner you realize that being poor in America is a choice the better you will understand the argument here. With all of the opportunities that we have there is NO EXCUSE for being poor. Even the disabled and people too sick to work are covered by social programs designed to take care of them so they enjoy a decent standard of living.

What I cannot stand is people making excuses for poor people and letting them stay poor instead of providing them with some motivation to get their ******* ass in gear.

 

[Father Time]

Sure proves the hypocrisy on the right, doesn't it... Only thing crazy here is the alley babbler, LOL.... can't keep her story straight....

Oh, I suppose that when the left hollers to tax the rich more, but can't stand when the tables are turned and somebody says to tax the poor more, that isn't hypocrisy to argue against it.

Name me one post where I said tax the rich more. Go on, I'll wait.

 

[alan1]

Sure proves the hypocrisy on the right, doesn't it... Only thing crazy here is the alley babbler, LOL.... can't keep her story straight....

Oh, I suppose that when the left hollers to tax the rich more, but can't stand when the tables are turned and somebody says to tax the poor more, that isn't hypocrisy to argue against it.

Name me one post where I said tax the rich more. Go on, I'll wait.

Did I say you had? I don't see your name in any of my posts, nor have I quoted you and then claimed anything about you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mountain Man, you are going to have to put your pocket book where you mouth is right now. Get ready to pay more than your fair share (in your mind) for the poor. Poor baby.

 

[Againsheila]

The sooner you realize that being poor in America is a choice the better you will understand the argument here. With all of the opportunities that we have there is NO EXCUSE for being poor. Even the disabled and people too sick to work are covered by social programs designed to take care of them so they enjoy a decent standard of living.

What I cannot stand is people making excuses for poor people and letting them stay poor instead of providing them with some motivation to get their ******* ass in gear.

<<<

Designed to take care of them? Put them in an adult home and ignore them maybe....

Adult daycare has been cut completely from our state budget. There is nothing for our special needs adults to do...NOTHING. My son is 21 and still in diapers. He loves to work, but because of the toileting issue, they won't help him in a job. Seems that our state has decided to do away with structured environments in favor of the independent environment which doesn't work for many of our disabled people, like my son. So he sits all day with nothing to do.....he can fold clothes, he can pull weeds, he can do any number of jobs and I do my best to find things to keep him occupied, but his group home isn't paid for that so they don't do it, they provide him with food and a place to sleep and that's about it. What's more, our state has cut the group home's budget, and they expect the same amount of care....

Special Olympics is something that some of the disabled have joined because their loved ones make sure they get to an from practice, many of them, like myself, volunteer to help. Otherwise the Special Olympics would be dead too.

We closed our institutions, and expect our disabled to remain and home and provide little to NO care for them at all, leaving the stress on the families.

SSI and medicare, btw, provide only for food, shelter and certain medical care. They don't provide for clothes, movies, any kind of entertainment, etc. Many of our disabled have their teeth pulled rather than filled.

Not only do you not understand the poor, you don't understand the disabled either.....


I'm so sick of the "I'm better than you" attitude by people who've never been poor in their lives and have never had to deal with special needs people either. They seem to know everything but havn't done ONE thing to help the people they look down their noses at.

 

[AllieBaba]

Tissue? Now you're done with the emotional outburst, maybe you can debate the issue.

 

[Modbert]

Tissue? Now you're done with the emotional outburst, maybe you can debate the issue.

Emotional Outburst? What the **** is wrong with you? Seriously, this is someone who knows what the **** the situation is. This is someone who knows first hand what happens when all the funding is cut.

She is brave enough to tell us all her story and you tell her that? I hope one day you can get that cold black thing you call a heart fixed.

Why don't you go reexamine yourself and ask What Would Jesus Do? If he wasn't too busy bitching out all of the greedy ***** for allowing things to get to this point that is.

 

[alan1]

Mountain Man, you are going to have to put your pocket book where you mouth is right now. Get ready to pay more than your fair share (in your mind) for the poor. Poor baby.

What are you going to do when all the baby-boomers retire and stop paying taxes?

 

[AllieBaba]

Tissue? Now you're done with the emotional outburst, maybe you can debate the issue.

Emotional Outburst? What the **** is wrong with you? Seriously, this is someone who knows what the **** the situation is. This is someone who knows first hand what happens when all the funding is cut.

She is brave enough to tell us all her story and you tell her that? I hope one day you can get that cold black thing you call a heart fixed.

Why don't you go reexamine yourself and ask What Would Jesus Do? If he wasn't too busy bitching out all of the greedy ***** for allowing things to get to this point that is.

Spare me, you little dweeb. I get rapped all the time for providing personal experience as opposed to actual information. Throw some stats in there, and it's relevant, otherwise, it's just venting.

 

[Modbert]

Spare me, you little dweeb. I get rapped all the time for providing personal experience as opposed to actual information. Throw some stats in there, and it's relevant, otherwise, it's just venting.

Oh, so two wrongs make a right? Or do you feel that because some people nag on you for sharing your personal experiments, you'll do the same to others? Way to complete the circle of life there Allie. Her point of view is relevant. I gave stats earlier, however, they went entirely ignored by you I see.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Why don't you go reexamine yourself and ask What Would Jesus Do? .

One thing I'm pretty sure he would NOT do is say, "Have Government take money from other people and give it to the poor." I think he'd say "YOU help the poor."

I don't think they should necessarily tax the poor more. What they should do is reduce government to the point where we would not need to pillage a relatively small percentage of the population in order to sustain such massive expenditure. Someone said something about the majority supporting this. Well, OF COURSE. That's because the majority gets the "benefit" of massive expenditure while a minority of the population bears the overwhelming preponderance of the cost.

It's not just the income tax either. Go to http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_wtoc.pdf and look at Table 5. The share of total federal tax liability borne by the top 20% was about 69% as of 2005. The bottom 40%, meanwhile, bore less about 5% of the burden. You can see that the top 40% bore about 86% while the bottom 40% bore about 14%. It's pretty easy to support expensive government when you're not the one paying for it.

A "moral" tax would require that everybody who lives in the country pays an equal share of the cost of running the government. And, I assure you, if we had such a system people wouldn't be supporting anything remotely like the level of expenditure the United States government engages in today.

As far as charity goes: It should be voluntary. Charity should not be compelled by government as it is now.

 

[Againsheila]

Why don't you go reexamine yourself and ask What Would Jesus Do? .

One thing I'm pretty sure he would NOT do is say, "Have Government take money from other people and give it to the poor." I think he'd say "YOU help the poor."

I don't think they should necessarily tax the poor more. What they should do is reduce government to the point where we would not need to pillage a relatively small percentage of the population in order to sustain such massive expenditure. Someone said something about the majority supporting this. Well, OF COURSE. That's because the majority gets the "benefit" of massive expenditure while a minority of the population bears the overwhelming preponderance of the cost.

It's not just the income tax either. Go to http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_wtoc.pdf and look at Table 5. The share of total federal tax liability borne by the top 20% was about 69% as of 2005. The bottom 40%, meanwhile, bore less about 5% of the burden. You can see that the top 40% bore about 86% while the bottom 40% bore about 14%. It's pretty easy to support expensive government when you're not the one paying for it.

A "moral" tax would require that everybody who lives in the country pays an equal share of the cost of running the government. And, I assure you, if we had such a system people wouldn't be supporting anything remotely like the level of expenditure the United States government engages in today.

As far as charity goes: It should be voluntary. Charity should not be compelled by government as it is now.

Yeah, you're right, the top 20% paid 69% of the taxes, but the top 10% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, they should be paying MORE than 90% of the taxes, they aren't taxed enough, the bottom 90% is taxed too much, and that includes 50% of your 20%

.

 

[AllieBaba]

Spare me, you little dweeb. I get rapped all the time for providing personal experience as opposed to actual information. Throw some stats in there, and it's relevant, otherwise, it's just venting.

Oh, so two wrongs make a right? Or do you feel that because some people nag on you for sharing your personal experiments, you'll do the same to others? Way to complete the circle of life there Allie. Her point of view is relevant. I gave stats earlier, however, they went entirely ignored by you I see.

No, it's a valid criticism. Use personal information in support of, but not in place of, otherwise supported information to make an argument.

And I wasn't talking about your stats, though this thread has been dead so I don't even know what stats you're talking about. I assume they're biased, however.

 

[Father Time]

Oh, I suppose that when the left hollers to tax the rich more, but can't stand when the tables are turned and somebody says to tax the poor more, that isn't hypocrisy to argue against it.

Name me one post where I said tax the rich more. Go on, I'll wait.

Did I say you had? I don't see your name in any of my posts, nor have I quoted you and then claimed anything about you.

*adjusts glasses*
oh, ok I thought it said my name in your quote for some reason. Sorry.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why don't you go reexamine yourself and ask What Would Jesus Do? .

One thing I'm pretty sure he would NOT do is say, "Have Government take money from other people and give it to the poor." I think he'd say "YOU help the poor."

I don't think they should necessarily tax the poor more. What they should do is reduce government to the point where we would not need to pillage a relatively small percentage of the population in order to sustain such massive expenditure. Someone said something about the majority supporting this. Well, OF COURSE. That's because the majority gets the "benefit" of massive expenditure while a minority of the population bears the overwhelming preponderance of the cost.

It's not just the income tax either. Go to http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_wtoc.pdf and look at Table 5. The share of total federal tax liability borne by the top 20% was about 69% as of 2005. The bottom 40%, meanwhile, bore less about 5% of the burden. You can see that the top 40% bore about 86% while the bottom 40% bore about 14%. It's pretty easy to support expensive government when you're not the one paying for it.

A "moral" tax would require that everybody who lives in the country pays an equal share of the cost of running the government. And, I assure you, if we had such a system people wouldn't be supporting anything remotely like the level of expenditure the United States government engages in today.

As far as charity goes: It should be voluntary. Charity should not be compelled by government as it is now.

Yeah, you're right, the top 20% paid 69% of the taxes, but the top 10% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, they should be paying MORE than 90% of the taxes, they aren't taxed enough, the bottom 90% is taxed too much, and that includes 50% of your 20%

.

Do you honestly still not know the difference between income and wealth?
The top tax payers also happen, not coincidentally, to be the top job creators. That's usually how they got there. Why would you want to punish the most productive people in your society to subsidize the least productive?

 

[alan1]

Name me one post where I said tax the rich more. Go on, I'll wait.

Did I say you had? I don't see your name in any of my posts, nor have I quoted you and then claimed anything about you.

*adjusts glasses*
oh, ok I thought it said my name in your quote for some reason. Sorry.

It's all good.