Wealth redistribution

[Andy9o8 1]

Quote

Quote

How would you like it if someone referred to fiscal or social conservatives as "the let them eat cake crowd?"

If they buy the kitchen appliances, buy the ingredients, and bake the cake ... they should be allowed to eat it and shouldn't have to share it.

Fine. Then I won't drive on your private driveway.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Fine. Then I won't drive on your private driveway.

[grumpy old man]

You dang Liberals get off my lawn!!

[/grumpy old man]

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 1]

Quote

Quote

Fine. Then I won't drive on your private driveway.

[grumpy old man]

You dang Liberals get off my lawn!!

[/grumpy old man]

We actually have a guy like that in our neighborhood. Lives on a corner property, screams at any kid who cuts the corner across his lawn. Middle-aged guy & his wife, who've never had kids. Here's the irony: he serves on the local School Board. Can you guess why? (Hint: it's not to promote quality education in the district.)

[Trent 0]

Quote

Ok, how about Canada, Great Britain, Australia, France, Germany...

I'd rather pay my insurance and get the treatments I need right away than be taxed %40 and have to wait. But that's just me. I like to spend my money how I see fit.

Quote

The US ranks below all the other industrialized countries in Life expectancy, infant mortality,equal access to health care.
The life expectancy for Americans has been dropping since the 80's.
It also has the largest diparity of health care between rich and poor.

That couldn't be from how infant mortality is measured or from the fact that Americans are getting fatter could it? NOOOOO, it's definitely because we don't do what Europe does for our healthcare system.

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 1,853]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Those are valid points...
However, most do not pay for health insurance outright, they do pay through higher taxes, true. Yet they do not have co-pay,or deductibles, pre-existing conditions. And every citizen is covered, and businesses are not responsible for providing health insurance to their employee's.

Over 45 million Americans are not covered, and most insurance has co-pay and deductibles. As you all know, the cheaper the insurance the higher the deductible. As well as pre-existing conditions not being covered and a host of other things that must be paid for out of pocket.

life expectancy is definetly affected by our lack of exercise, but is also affected by people waiting to last minute to go to the doctor because they can't afford it. The figures for infant mortality are Calculated by WHO as # of deaths per thousand births.

Indeed correlation does not imply casualty, yet it is hard to rule out...

You've obviously missed the past arguments on this. Just because Canada provides health care does not mean it's worth a damn. I've never been there or done research but Canadians on this board have said the system is broken. You're buying into the rainbows and unicorns rhetoric. If nobody is paying out of pocket, then all docs are paid by the government. Do they all get paid equally? Shitty doctors paid the same as brilliant docs? What incentive do they have to be good docs? Who gets what doctor? Can we go whenever we want? What about the drugs they prescribe? Are those free too?

It's easy to say everyone should have health care cause other countries do it. If you have a realistic proposal as to how it would work then please share.

The "it's not fair" and "I should get 'x' too" crowd will never understand that personal responsibility is the basic argument that those arguing against these "x"s have.

Health care IS out there. You can bitch and moan all you want about how half of America or what ever ignorant statistics you want to throw out... but it IS out there. You might have to look at your budget. If you make above a certain amount - yes, you have to be willing to cut the cable tv and some of the play money. If you make BELOW a certain amount you have to go and fill out some forms. Medicaid is out there. I am saddened by the ladies that come in after 28weeks on medicaid because they just didn't go to the case worker for the last SEVEN months. And it's someone elses fault. almost always.

If you're not happy where you are, do something to change it.

And that does NOT include stealing from those that have what you think you need. And yes, I do think that unfair tax distribution is stealing. Why should someone that makes 500k pay 40% in taxes (200,000 to uncle sam), .

I think you did your math incorrectly. According the the IRS 2008 tax rate schedule, someone (single) making $500k WITH NO DEDUCTIONS AT ALL OF ANY KIND would pay $153,596.75, not $200k. I strongly doubt that anyone making $500k has NO DEDUCTIONS OF ANY KIND. A married couple would pay less.

And yes, I think it perfectly reasonable. "FAIR" is an irrelevant word when talking about taxes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,772]

> Why should someone that makes 500k pay 40% in taxes (200,000 to
> uncle sam), while someone making 50k only pays 15% (7,500 to uncle.)

As Kallend pointed out, those numbers are off.

But in any case I assume your underlying point is that everyone should pay 40%, rather than have some people pay a lower percentage and some people pay a higher percentage. (Which is about what the rate would be if we actually paid our government's bills every year with our income taxes.)

The problem with that is it would destroy the economy. Low income people typically spend all they earn, so reducing their income by 25% would result in 25% less money in circulation. High income people typically bank much of what they make, so increasing their tax rate has less of an effect on the economy.

The ultimate in literal fairness would be to tax everyone the same AMOUNT, not the same RATE. Every taxpayer in the US would then pay about $20,000 a year, even the ones who make $12,000 a year. Everyone gets the same benefits, everyone pays the same amount.

That's clearly unworkable.

The next step is a flat tax, where everyone pays around 40%. That can work - but again, to go from what we have now to that would destroy our economy.

So instead we have a progressive tax, which gets money to run the government while impacting the economy the least. Since a good economy helps everyone in the US, _and_ increases tax revenue without increasing income taxes, it's a very important goal.

BTW I am all for reducing taxes. But the way to do that is reduce spending FIRST, THEN reduce taxes. Doing it the other way is part of the reason we are in this financial meltdown.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Yes, now that you worked your ass off and don't have to pick tabacco, why would you want to make where you came from better? So those poor white kids have a better education, better medical care, can go to museums, and have more money to go to college.
Yes, contributing tax dollars from wealthy individuals to help poor areas improve schools, hospitals ,libraries etc. "Wealth redistrubution" as you call it,is a horible idea...

I just happen to run across this article. Take from it what you will.

Government Funded Healthcare

Don't bash me. Bash the article. Bash Hawaii. Explain how the national plan would be different.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[bwnco 0]

Obama admitted it the other nite in his discussion with Joe the plumber. I want to tax the people whom make more and give it to people whom dont have as much. I think its a good idea to spread the wealth around..
How the fuck is he to take money from your pockets, you have worked hard for, and give it to people whom allready pay no taxes, in the form of a tax refund.
Have you people lost your flipping minds??? How the hell can you support him or anyone, for punishing the people whom work hard, and giving it to the fricking welfare bums!!! If you are for that, give 30% of your check to them, but keep ur fricking hands off my future ive worked for.. Socialism dont work. its failed miserably everywhere its been tried, good grief read ur flipping history you idiots..

"Anything I've ever done that ultimately was worthwhile initially scared me to death."

[kallend 1,853]

Quote

Socialism dont work. its failed miserably everywhere its been tried, good grief read ur flipping history you idiots..

Good job we have communist China to lend us the money to cover our debts. $1.6T I believe, and rising.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

He can propose whatever he wants, and people can vote as they see fit.

However, he shouldn't lie and call it a tax refund or tax rebate. That's a lie.

He should call it what it is, welfare, and justify why that's necessary in his mind.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,853]

Quote

He can propose whatever he wants, and people can vote as they see fit.

However, he shouldn't lie and call it a tax refund or tax rebate. That's a lie.

He should call it what it is, welfare, and justify why that's necessary in his mind.

I had a tax refund last year, along with a majority of US taxpayers. I guess we'll have to start calling it "welfare" now.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

He can propose whatever he wants, and people can vote as they see fit.

However, he shouldn't lie and call it a tax refund or tax rebate. That's a lie.

He should call it what it is, welfare, and justify why that's necessary in his mind.

I had a tax refund last year, along with a majority of US taxpayers. I guess we'll have to start calling it "welfare" now.

It's welfare when people who don't pay taxes get a tax refund.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[billvon 2,772]

>It's welfare when people who don't pay taxes get a tax refund.

In that case, the only one to increase welfare over the past 8 years has been Bush. Recall his "economic stimulus" checks that went to people who paid no taxes.

[Trent 0]

Quote

In that case, the only one to increase welfare over the past 8 years has been Bush. Recall his "economic stimulus" checks that went to people who paid no taxes.

So did Bush's stimulus work? Be careful. If you say it did, you're complimenting Bush. If you say it didn't you're arguing against your man's ideas. What's it gonna be????

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,772]

>So did Bush's stimulus work?

I think it's pretty clear that it didn't reverse the course of the economy, wouldn't you say?

[Trent 0]

So, trickle-up doesn't work then? Better tell Obama!

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,772]

>So, trickle-up doesn't work then? Better tell Obama!

The rebate didn't work. The EITC has worked. (And it's been going on for more than 20 years, and is supported by both parties, so it will be really hard to make it into a partisan issue.)

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Have you people lost your flipping minds??? How the hell can you support him or anyone, for punishing the people whom work hard, and giving it to the fricking welfare bums!!!

We're ALREADY doing that. The average income tax rate for each of the bottom two quintiles is negative due to refundable credits.

And the Republicans are doing more to INCREASE the hand-outs than the Democrats. After the Bush 43 tax cut the second quintile who have an average income tax rate that's negative saw a nearly 18% drop in all taxes paid versus 12.7% for the top .1% and just 10% for the second highest quintile.

People making over $200K a year were the only group of Americans that saw their share of income shrink while their tax payments grew.

Relatively speaking, Clinton was a fiscal conservative and Bush 43 a liberal bed-wetter.

[Trent 0]

So trickle up works in EITC for those making less than $12,590 but giving stimulus checks of $300-$1200 to anyone else doesn't?

Oh, hello again!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>It's welfare when people who don't pay taxes get a tax refund.

In that case, the only one to increase welfare over the past 8 years has been Bush. Recall his "economic stimulus" checks that went to people who paid no taxes.

AGREED, it was a bonehead move

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,772]

>So trickle up works in EITC . . .

Yes. It has brought more than 5 million US families above the poverty line, and works far better than welfare in that respect. It doesn't mean it's a good idea overall (I don't like the idea of refundable tax credits) but there's over 20 years of data showing that it does increase spending in low income families.

>giving stimulus checks of $300-$1200 to anyone else doesn't?

You tell me. How's the economy doing after that one-time stimulus?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>So trickle up works in EITC . . .

Yes. It has brought more than 5 million US families above the poverty line, and works far better than welfare in that respect. It doesn't mean it's a good idea overall (I don't like the idea of refundable tax credits) but there's over 20 years of data showing that it does increase spending in low income families.

>giving stimulus checks of $300-$1200 to anyone else doesn't?

You tell me. How's the economy doing after that one-time stimulus?

if it's applied against a fed tax owed, then we can call it a credit - if it's against a zero tax balance and they get money - then it's welfare. Call it what you want? but it's welfare. Maybe justified welfare, maybe not, but calling it a credit when someone pays zero on there fed tax and then gets even more money back is silly and a lie.


Just admit - you are for massive welfare type government interference. Calling it neat sounding names just keeps people from feeling bad about it. Maybe you are right, but let's call a duck a duck.

Edit: Let's just say you can put lipstick on a welfare program, but it's still a duck/pig/pitbull/welfare

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

had a tax refund last year, along with a majority of US taxpayers. I guess we'll have to start calling it "welfare" now.

You're a pretty sharp guy. Let's try some math.

You pay, over the year $35,000 into Fed Taxes. You do your taxes and owe $5,000 more tax due.
What's your tax?
35K + 5k = +40K

I pay, over the year $35,000 into Fed Taxes. I do my taxes and get $5,000 back as a refund.
What's my tax?
35K - 5k = +30K

Fast Eddie pays, Over the year $15,000 into Fed Taxes. He does his taxes and gets $25,000 back as a refund.
What's his "welfare" 15K - 25k = -10K

See?

Taxes start with that little "t" shape know as a plus sign.

Welfare starts with that dash shape known as a minus sign.

Check it out in a good math book, those little t's and dashes are very important in solving problems.

Maybe it's best for society, etc that Eddie gets a net gain in money, I don't think so, others do. But let's call it welfare, not a 'tax credit', or an 'overage refund stimulus', or a 'tax refund', or something pretty.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,772]

>if it's applied against a fed tax owed, then we can call it a credit . . .

They're both called credits. There are refundable (non-wastable) tax credits and non-refundable (or wastable) tax credits. Refundable ones let you go negative and get money sent to you (whether or not you paid any tax) - non-refundable ones can only go to zero, so you never get any money back beyond a refund for taxes paid.

You, of course, can call it whatever you like.

>Just admit - you are for massive welfare type government interference.

No, I'm not. I'm in favor of tax levels that go to zero (but no lower) at the lower end and rise progressively as income went up.

(BTW both candidates propose increases in refundable tax credits.)

[Trent 0]

Quote

Yes. It has brought more than 5 million US families above the poverty line, and works far better than welfare in that respect. It doesn't mean it's a good idea overall (I don't like the idea of refundable tax credits) but there's over 20 years of data showing that it does increase spending in low income families.

It was intended to get people who would otherwise be on welfare to get jobs, basically setting a bottom for their earnings. I BET in increases spending in low income families!! Of course it does. What else could it do? Those people receiving EITC are probably spending all of their money to survive. We're still GIVING them money though.

Quote

You tell me. How's the economy doing after that one-time stimulus?

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" much? Come on. Are you saying that the people who got the stimulus checks either didn't spend it or found some way to use it to destroy our artificially inflated economy?

Oh, hello again!