PDA

View Full Version : Opinion column of poverty



sandsjames
05-13-2015, 02:20 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/12/opinions/butterfield-maloney-truth-poverty-america/index.html

There is a lot in this column that I agree with. Better education, assistance with child care, etc., but the one thing I don't understand is the following:


Second, we should expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provides poorer families greater economic incentive to work hard and earn more. In 2013, the tax credit lifted 6.2 million people out of poverty.

"Greater economic incentive to work hard and earn more"? Isn't earning more the incentive to work harder?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
05-13-2015, 02:36 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/12/opinions/butterfield-maloney-truth-poverty-america/index.html

There is a lot in this column that I agree with. Better education, assistance with child care, etc., but the one thing I don't understand is the following:



"Greater economic incentive to work hard and earn more"? Isn't earning more the incentive to work harder?

I read the article and it's anti-free market, the one system that has lifted more people out of poverty and provided more opportunities than any other system in the history of the human race.

Raise the minimum wage? How can you pop out kids, then look at yourself in the mirror and admit, "all my education and skills are worth no more than the 'minimum' wage, and the ONLY way I'll ever make more is for the government to raise this wage." How sad.

Expand Earned Income Credit? Hmmmm, don't we have an $18 trillion debt and $500 billion annual deficits, forecasted by the CBO to once again exceed $1 trillion within several years? And the answer is to EXPAND the base of citizens who already pay NOTHING in the form of income taxes, while asking the few who do pay to pay even more? Yeah, that will work!

sandsjames
05-13-2015, 03:12 PM
I read the article and it's anti-free market, the one system that has lifted more people out of poverty and provided more opportunities than any other system in the history of the human race.

Raise the minimum wage? How can you pop out kids, then look at yourself in the mirror and admit, "all my education and skills are worth no more than the 'minimum' wage, and the ONLY way I'll ever make more is for the government to raise this wage." How sad.

Expand Earned Income Credit? Hmmmm, don't we have an $18 trillion debt and $500 billion annual deficits, forecasted by the CBO to once again exceed $1 trillion within several years? And the answer is to EXPAND the base of citizens who already pay NOTHING in the form of income taxes, while asking the few who do pay to pay even more? Yeah, that will work!


My point was simply this: How is earning more money not an incentive to work harder? Why does a tax credit need to be used as an incentive? Are there that many people out there who don't correlate working harder with more money?

Absinthe Anecdote
05-13-2015, 03:22 PM
From the IRS

The EITC is a refundable tax credit. This means taxpayers may get money back, even if they have no tax withheld. Nationwide last year, over 27 million eligible individuals and families received more than $63 billion in EITC.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Earned-Income-Tax-Credit-Do-I-Qualify



Sounds like many people who get this tax credit get it for income they didn't earn. I never understood why it is called "earned income."

Earned by other people?

Bos Mutus
05-13-2015, 05:14 PM
Isn't earning more the incentive to work harder?

Let's assume it is...then isn't "earning" more even more incentive?

For the low income...up to a certain level, the more you make the more Earned Income Credit you get....hence, the name, Earned Income Credit. It is also based on the number of children you have.

For example, for a married couple with 2 children...they "earn" a tax credit of 40% of each dollar of income...up to a maximum income of 13,650 (tax credit of $5460.

So...for those people...every extra dollar they earn on their job, gets them a total of $1.40....that's .40 more incentive to "work hard and earn more"

Above that income level, the credit stays the same until you hit $23K+ and then begins phasing out

Bos Mutus
05-13-2015, 05:15 PM
Sounds like many people who get this tax credit get it for income they didn't earn. I never understood why it is called "earned income."

Earned by other people?

It's because for the very low income...the more they do earn, the more of a credit they get.

sandsjames
05-13-2015, 05:31 PM
Let's assume it is...then isn't "earning" more even more incentive?

For the low income...up to a certain level, the more you make the more Earned Income Credit you get....hence, the name, Earned Income Credit. It is also based on the number of children you have.

For example, for a married couple with 2 children...they "earn" a tax credit of 40% of each dollar of income...up to a maximum income of 13,650 (tax credit of $5460.

So...for those people...every extra dollar they earn on their job, gets them a total of $1.40....that's .40 more incentive to "work hard and earn more"

Above that income level, the credit stays the same until you hit $23K+ and then begins phasing out

Right, so it's an incentive to work, to a certain point, then not go any further because it will end up costing money. Or, have more kids.

I guess my opinion on this comes from a family member who works just enough to get the EIC, then end up getting almost $8k back between that and the child tax credit (though I thought one of those was going away). So almost 40% of what he brings home is the EIC/tax credit. Far more than he's paying in (not paying in anything). He's been doing this as long as I can remember, with no motivation to do anything except ensure he has children under a certain age at all times.

Bos Mutus
05-13-2015, 05:46 PM
Right, so it's an incentive to work, to a certain point, then not go any further because it will end up costing money. Or, have more kids.

Yes...up to a certain point.

I remember getting EIC as a young SSgt...stopped getting it at some point, maybe TSgt, or MSgt. Either way, I don't think it was an incentive to me one way or another...just a nice early year bonus.

I also don't think anyone says, "oh, I wanna work a few more hours to get more EIC...nor do I think anyone refuses OT or a pay raise because they don't want it to mess up their EIC.

Mostly...I was just explaining that for a certain group of very low income people, the credit actually goes up the more you earn...I wasn't sure if most people were aware of that...and it is why the it is called an "Earned Income" credit...you have to earn income to get it; the more you earn, the more you get...to a point.


I guess my opinion on this comes from a family member who works just enough to get the EIC, then end up getting almost $8k back between that and the child tax credit (though I thought one of those was going away). So almost 40% of what he brings home is the EIC/tax credit. Far more than he's paying in (not paying in anything). He's been doing this as long as I can remember, with no motivation to do anything except ensure he has children under a certain age at all times.

I'm sure he appreciates that EIC...I guess I would be surprised that anyone with that kind of short-term focus gives any thought to EIC as they're going through their year, but just is happy to get it when they file. It's just a lifestyle choice. I'm not saying that we should be supporting it...I just don't think EIC has all the much of an impact on it one way or another.

sandsjames
05-13-2015, 05:54 PM
I'm sure he appreciates that EIC...I guess I would be surprised that anyone with that kind of short-term focus gives any thought to EIC as they're going through their year, but just is happy to get it when they file. It's just a lifestyle choice. I'm not saying that we should be supporting it...I just don't think EIC has all the much of an impact on it one way or another.It has a huge impact. His laziness outweighs his pride and the 8k he gets back allows him to live (in addition to other assistance) relatively comfortably (roof over his head, cable, phone, internet, etc). He gives his entire focus to EIC/tax credits. His focus is on that check he gets in February every year.

Bos Mutus
05-13-2015, 06:27 PM
It has a huge impact. His laziness outweighs his pride and the 8k he gets back allows him to live (in addition to other assistance) relatively comfortably (roof over his head, cable, phone, internet, etc). He gives his entire focus to EIC/tax credits. His focus is on that check he gets in February every year.

Okay...I accept that. I'm sure there are people like this out there.

SomeRandomGuy
05-13-2015, 07:21 PM
Okay...I accept that. I'm sure there are people like this out there.

People who receive government assistance are very much aware of the income limits. I grew up attending private schools (Christian). They were usually staffed by ladies from the church who's children also attend, usually for free. These ladies usually get paid almost nothing but they don't mind because it's sort of mission work. Anyways, in 3rd grade (I think) I remember my teacher quitting her job halfway through the year. She became pregnant and the $3,000 or so she received to teach was just enough to bump her family over the income limit for Medicaid. Since the school didn't offer insurance she quit the $3000 job in order to get roughly $30,000 in free medical care.

The idea behind the earned income tax credit is to incentivize people to make more money. Economists talk of what is know as the marginal income tax rate. There are situations where a person can get a pay raise but not bring home any additional money. The idea of the EITC is to make it worthwhile to work jobs that pay minimum wage. I actually don't agree that raising it would help anything. As Sandsjames said, people will earn up to the limit and then stop. As they surpass the limit it costs them money. People who file for this credit every year know exactly where that line is. I'm going to give all of them credit for being smart enough to look at the YTD earnings on their pay stub. I guarantee at least some of these people quit their minimum wage jobs at the end of the year and take a month vacation because it literally costs them money to go to work. Raising the EITC limit just increases that number. EITC alone won't get anyone out of poverty.

sandsjames
05-13-2015, 07:31 PM
People who receive government assistance are very much aware of the income limits. I grew up attending private schools (Christian). They were usually staffed by ladies from the church who's children also attend, usually for free. These ladies usually get paid almost nothing but they don't mind because it's sort of mission work. Anyways, in 3rd grade (I think) I remember my teacher quitting her job halfway through the year. She became pregnant and the $3,000 or so she received to teach was just enough to bump her family over the income limit for Medicaid. Since the school didn't offer insurance she quit the $3000 job in order to get roughly $30,000 in free medical care.

The idea behind the earned income tax credit is to incentivize people to make more money. Economists talk of what is know as the marginal income tax rate. There are situations where a person can get a pay raise but not bring home any additional money. The idea of the EITC is to make it worthwhile to work jobs that pay minimum wage. I actually don't agree that raising it would help anything. As Sandsjames said, people will earn up to the limit and then stop. As they surpass the limit it costs them money. People who file for this credit every year know exactly where that line is. I'm going to give all of them credit for being smart enough to look at the YTD earnings on their pay stub. I guarantee at least some of these people quit their minimum wage jobs at the end of the year and take a month vacation because it literally costs them money to go to work. Raising the EITC limit just increases that number. EITC alone won't get anyone out of poverty.


I ain't gonna lie. If I was close to the limit, I'd take advantage of it.

Bos Mutus
05-13-2015, 08:03 PM
People who receive government assistance are very much aware of the income limits.

I suppose they would be. Much like the upper middle class might be aware of certain tax advantages for different things. I certainly am...got a HELOC and put car loans and other debt on it because interest is tax deductible, etc.


I grew up attending private schools (Christian). They were usually staffed by ladies from the church who's children also attend, usually for free. These ladies usually get paid almost nothing but they don't mind because it's sort of mission work. Anyways, in 3rd grade (I think) I remember my teacher quitting her job halfway through the year. She became pregnant and the $3,000 or so she received to teach was just enough to bump her family over the income limit for Medicaid. Since the school didn't offer insurance she quit the $3000 job in order to get roughly $30,000 in free medical care.

Okay, that makes sense.


The idea behind the earned income tax credit is to incentivize people to make more money. Economists talk of what is know as the marginal income tax rate. There are situations where a person can get a pay raise but not bring home any additional money.

Maybe because of things like medicaid or EIC, not because of marginal tax rates.


The idea of the EITC is to make it worthwhile to work jobs that pay minimum wage. I actually don't agree that raising it would help anything. As Sandsjames said, people will earn up to the limit and then stop. As they surpass the limit it costs them money. People who file for this credit every year know exactly where that line is. I'm going to give all of them credit for being smart enough to look at the YTD earnings on their pay stub. I guarantee at least some of these people quit their minimum wage jobs at the end of the year and take a month vacation because it literally costs them money to go to work.

As I understand EIC, you won't ever lose total money by earning more. You earn an extra percent on the dollar for each dollar you earn up to a certain amount...in the above example $13K.

Then...from like $13-$23K, the credit stays the same even as you earn a little more. So, to simplify, the max credit this family can earn is roughly $5500. They earn a proportional amount of that $5500 up to $13K, at which point they are getting the max. They can then earn up to $23K without losing any of the $5500.

So, to maximimize the benefit and total income, they should earn $23K and get the $5500 EIC for a total of $28.5K

Above $23K, they lose the credit, proportionally, not sure the math, but let's say you lose .40 for every dollar you earn...so, you're still ahead by earning more or it is less incentive at that income level than you would otherwise have ($1 raise brings you home only .60 more)...so, everyone earning above $23K is still getting more than $28.5K total....until about $47K at which point they no longer get EIC, but their total income is $47K.

With that said...I can imagine there might be people who would take a month off in December rather than "working for 60 cents on the dollar", or effectively working for less than minimum wage....so, they're going to get time off, but they're not going to gross more money by doing so.


Raising the EITC limit just increases that number. EITC alone won't get anyone out of poverty.

I'm sure that's true...but I do think it is a huge help for a lot of young families that are working to get out of poverty, also.

sandsjames
05-13-2015, 08:17 PM
I'm sure that's true...but I do think it is a huge help for a lot of young families that are working to get out of poverty, also.I could not agree with this more. It's great for those working to get out of poverty. Which is why there should be a certain number of years you can receive it. If I get EIC for 10 years in a row, am I really working to get out of poverty?

Bos Mutus
05-13-2015, 08:49 PM
I could not agree with this more. It's great for those working to get out of poverty. Which is why there should be a certain number of years you can receive it. If I get EIC for 10 years in a row, am I really working to get out of poverty?

I don't know.

I haven't really signed onto the popular conservative rally cry that the majority of people getting govt. assistance are simply lazy parasites gaming the system and voting for the candidate the gives them the most free shit.

...though, I have no doubt there are many examples of such people that can be held up as representative and reason to cut assistance programs. I'm not entirely convinced.

The philosophy seems to be "if you want people to work hard, the consequence of not doing so has to be real poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc."....the inevitable result of that philosophy though is having some be in real poverty, starvation and homelessness...which I'm not entirely comfortable with.

I think there are better men than me that have lost it all through no fault of their own...and that gives me a bit of uneasiness at times, and feeling very grateful for all that I do have almost always. Rarely do I envy the poor for the ability to survive without work...whether that is by taking advantage of programs my tax dollars provide for or otherwise. I don't have a negative image of these people...I'm grateful for where I am.

sandsjames
05-13-2015, 09:14 PM
I don't know.

I haven't really signed onto the popular conservative rally cry that the majority of people getting govt. assistance are simply lazy parasites gaming the system and voting for the candidate the gives them the most free shit.

...though, I have no doubt there are many examples of such people that can be held up as representative and reason to cut assistance programs. I'm not entirely convinced.

The philosophy seems to be "if you want people to work hard, the consequence of not doing so has to be real poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc."....the inevitable result of that philosophy though is having some be in real poverty, starvation and homelessness...which I'm not entirely comfortable with.

I think there are better men than me that have lost it all through no fault of their own...and that gives me a bit of uneasiness at times, and feeling very grateful for all that I do have almost always. Rarely do I envy the poor for the ability to survive without work...whether that is by taking advantage of programs my tax dollars provide for or otherwise. I don't have a negative image of these people...I'm grateful for where I am.


I agree with you that they are lazy parasites. However, just as with any other funding, people of all incomes will take advantage of them if they are there.

Bos Mutus
05-13-2015, 09:36 PM
I agree with you that they are lazy parasites.

I'm going to assume you mistyped rather than completely misunderstood what I said.


However, just as with any other funding, people of all incomes will take advantage of them if they are there.

True....the alternative is not have them available for people who need them.

So...I have no doubt there are some people out there "taking advantage" of the situation, you know the woman with 14 kids from 10 daddy's crying about who is gonna take care of her babies if they put her husband in jail or whatever...I don't think it's the maginitude that the conservatives would have us believe.

sandsjames
05-13-2015, 09:43 PM
I'm going to assume you mistyped rather than completely misunderstood what I said. Indeed I did. I agree with you on your point about the perception of them being lazy parasites.


True....the alternative is not have them available for people who need them. This is where we disagree. I think there is a way to do it to severely cut down on the number of misusers without taking it away from those who need it.


So...I have no doubt there are some people out there "taking advantage" of the situation, you know the woman with 14 kids from 10 daddy's crying about who is gonna take care of her babies if they put her husband in jail or whatever...I don't think it's the maginitude that the conservatives would have us believe.I also agree with this. As stated above, there are ways to fix it without it being an "all or nothing" situation. Restrictions on payments for those who are serial abusers. There has to be a time frame that people are on it without the recipient having proof that they are making every effort to get off of it. I'm not talking about just showing up at job interviews. I'm talking about showing real effort.

Bos Mutus
05-13-2015, 09:59 PM
Indeed I did. I agree with you on your point about the perception of them being lazy parasites.

This is where we disagree. I think there is a way to do it to severely cut down on the number of misusers without taking it away from those who need it.

I also agree with this. As stated above, there are ways to fix it without it being an "all or nothing" situation. Restrictions on payments for those who are serial abusers. There has to be a time frame that people are on it without the recipient having proof that they are making every effort to get off of it. I'm not talking about just showing up at job interviews. I'm talking about showing real effort.

I don't really disagree.

I'm generally of the mind that every system always has room for improvement...

But, as you said...there will also always be someone who manipulates the system to take advantage of it...

Mjölnir
05-14-2015, 12:23 AM
I read the article and it's anti-free market, the one system that has lifted more people out of poverty and provided more opportunities than any other system in the history of the human race.

I kind of got the same impression.


I could not agree with this more. It's great for those working to get out of poverty. Which is why there should be a certain number of years you can receive it. If I get EIC for 10 years in a row, am I really working to get out of poverty?

Probably situationally dependent. You may be working on it, then life throws yo ua curve ball here or there that sets you back.

Then there are people like the family member you describe, skirting the line very well that know how to maximize what they receive from the government. I have known people who are very aware of this when it comes to their specific tax brackets -- they pocket more in the end by not getting a raise and bumping into the next bracket with a higher tax burden. The difference of $100 a year could cost you $2,000 in taxes ... something to think about.

I have a friend who is very aware of how he as a 'small business owner' can take overt advantage of write-offs and deductions. He lives in a really nice house, he and his wife drive some snazzy cars, just had a hardscaped pool installed, take pretty snazzy vacations every year etc. He has an incredible home office, that in theory is where he runs his business from, it is mostly a man-cave / gaming center but ... I don't know if his socio-political opinions are influenced by this but in our discussions, he has stated that they don't pay income tax when all the accounting is done -- I don't know if it true or not (never seen their 1040's), but it is a bit frustrating to think that they live a pretty amazing lifestyle and supposedly don't pay any taxes.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
05-14-2015, 07:30 PM
...but it is a bit frustrating to think that they live a pretty amazing lifestyle and supposedly don't pay any taxes.

Replacing the current tax system with FairTax (National Sales Tax) or a Flat Tax would fix this problem. No loopholes, no safe havens, and 100% across the board fairness.

sandsjames
05-14-2015, 07:52 PM
Replacing the current tax system with FairTax (National Sales Tax) or a Flat Tax would fix this problem. No loopholes, no safe havens, and 100% across the board fairness.

Yep...a VAT and a flat tax. I can't figure out why so many people are against it. The more you spend, the more you make, the more you pay. Seems simple. Maybe too simple for the minds in Washington?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
05-14-2015, 08:12 PM
Yep...a VAT and a flat tax. I can't figure out why so many people are against it. The more you spend, the more you make, the more you pay. Seems simple. Maybe too simple for the minds in Washington?

Why a VAT? That taxes products at every stage of production, through retail sales. I'm a FairTax fan myself. Products are only taxed at point of sale.

sandsjames
05-14-2015, 08:47 PM
Why a VAT? That taxes products at every stage of production, through retail sales. I'm a FairTax fan myself. Products are only taxed at point of sale.

We're talking about the same thing. A point of sale tax (whatever you want to call it) on every item. Put it right in the price, just as they do in countries like England. That, along with the flat rate income tax that everyone pays...no deductions, loopholes, etc.

garhkal
05-14-2015, 08:50 PM
Right, so it's an incentive to work, to a certain point, then not go any further because it will end up costing money. Or, have more kids.Yes...up to a certain point.

I remember getting EIC as a young SSgt...stopped getting it at some point, maybe TSgt, or MSgt. Either way, I don't think it was an incentive to me one way or another...just a nice early year bonus.

I also don't think anyone says, "oh, I wanna work a few more hours to get more EIC...nor do I think anyone refuses OT or a pay raise because they don't want it to mess up their EIC.


While its not for EITC, i DO know several people in England who did that with the UK supplementary assistance programs they have. Stopped working, or refused overtime, just so they could still qualify for it.. and cause of that ended up with more money in pocket.



I'm sure that's true...but I do think it is a huge help for a lot of young families that are working to get out of poverty, also.I could not agree with this more. It's great for those working to get out of poverty. Which is why there should be a certain number of years you can receive it. If I get EIC for 10 years in a row, am I really working to get out of poverty?

I feel the same way. These programs are good, IF they actually do help people get out of poverty and back into the work force. BUT from all i see, all they do is help people stay IN poverty and on the government teet.


The philosophy seems to be "if you want people to work hard, the consequence of not doing so has to be real poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc."....the inevitable result of that philosophy though is having some be in real poverty, starvation and homelessness...which I'm not entirely comfortable with.

I wonder when society changed from allowing that to happen to being (by my perception) too squeamish about letting it happen.



True....the alternative is not have them available for people who need them.

Agreed. BUT where is the line drawn? How many 'freeloaders/fraudsters' is acceptable to be using the same program that the truely needy are, before people start calling for it to be stopped? 2%, 5%, 10%??


So...I have no doubt there are some people out there "taking advantage" of the situation, you know the woman with 14 kids from 10 daddy's crying about who is gonna take care of her babies if they put her husband in jail or whatever...I don't think it's the maginitude that the conservatives would have us believe.

It might not be that bad, but the part i hate is you rarely hear of anyone being done for defrauding it. Only the big cases such as the multi-million fraud of Medicare/Medicade seem to even make the news ticker.. Heck even locally i don't ever remember seeing any mention of someone getting arrested and convicted of welfare fraud. Which makes me even wonder, do they even bother looking for it?
THAT Is what i have more of an issue with. That it just seems the powers that be, KNOW fraud is going on, but just does not care to do anything to stop it.

Heck when i lived in the UK, there were many TV adverts telling people to "Shop on a fraudster". But several family friends DID tattle on those who they knew were defrauding the system, but often they just went ignored by the agency they called.. So what's the purpose of having a 'fraud hotline' if they are just going to ignore the tips called in??


I also agree with this. As stated above, there are ways to fix it without it being an "all or nothing" situation. Restrictions on payments for those who are serial abusers. There has to be a time frame that people are on it without the recipient having proof that they are making every effort to get off of it. I'm not talking about just showing up at job interviews. I'm talking about showing real effort.

When my mother lived in Council housing and was getting assistance, she had iirc a twice a month appointment at the local "Office" and had to prove via letters, postal receipts, copies of appointments (name, date, time, contact #) etc, that she WAS trying to get a job but was having no luck, to stay on it.
So i agree, that we need something like that here.


Replacing the current tax system with FairTax (National Sales Tax) or a Flat Tax would fix this problem. No loopholes, no safe havens, and 100% across the board fairness.

I am all for it. DO away with the IRS, and the 100000s of pages of tax laws we have. Go to a national flat tax everyone pays into. No deductions. No loopholes, no credits..

But that is imo why so many liberals are against it, cause EVERYONE pays. There is no way for them or their friends to 'skip out on paying;..

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
05-14-2015, 08:53 PM
We're talking about the same thing. A point of sale tax (whatever you want to call it) on every item. Put it right in the price, just as they do in countries like England. That, along with the flat rate income tax that everyone pays...no deductions, loopholes, etc.

Well, we're 'almost' talking the same thing. FairTax and VAT are two different animals. Either case, Obama likes to talk about the "rich" paying their fair share, however, his definition of "fair" is nothing like what I was ever taught.

sandsjames
05-14-2015, 10:00 PM
Well, we're 'almost' talking the same thing. FairTax and VAT are two different animals. Either case, Obama likes to talk about the "rich" paying their fair share, however, his definition of "fair" is nothing like what I was ever taught.

For fucks sake dude. We are talking about the same thing. So VAT isn't the right term for it. Why are you trying to create an argument out of nothing?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
05-14-2015, 10:09 PM
For fucks sake dude. We are talking about the same thing. So VAT isn't the right term for it. Why are you trying to create an argument out of nothing?

While agreeing in principal with what you were stating, I was simply pointing out there is a difference. I wasn't trying to start an argument. God fucking forbid I try to correct someone without them getting defensive. It wasn't an attack on you.

sandsjames
05-14-2015, 11:14 PM
While agreeing in principal with what you were stating, I was simply pointing out there is a difference. I wasn't trying to start an argument. God fucking forbid I try to correct someone without them getting defensive. It wasn't an attack on you.

Officers will be Officers.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
05-15-2015, 12:50 PM
Officers will be Officers.

I used to be a TSgt too. Will TSgts be TSgts?

Rusty Jones
05-15-2015, 08:24 PM
VAT tax is wrong, IMO. If a teller from BofA and the CEO of BofA each go to 7-Eleven to buy a Coke, the teller just paid a higher percentage of his income in taxes than the CEO did.

I'm not a fan of sales tax for that very reason. Same thing for highway tolls.

These taxes are designed to target the poor.

As far as a "flat tax" goes... I can see that, but only if the flat tax begins at a certain income level. Everyone who makes 50K and up might be able to afford 20% or whatever, but not someone who makes 20K. I know that that's not a "true" flat tax, but I think that's the closest you can get to it while ensuring that everyone pays a fair share.

Please note, that I'm not a fan of sales tax... but, when kept to a low enough level, I can understand if the purpose is to make sure that all citizens have some "skin in the game" with regard to how tax dollars are spent; same with minimal income tax for low income earners.

I'm just not a fan of taxes that target the poor.

garhkal
05-15-2015, 08:35 PM
So basically the poor shouldn't pay any taxes IYO.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
05-15-2015, 08:36 PM
VAT tax is wrong, IMO. If a teller from BofA and the CEO of BofA each go to 7-Eleven to buy a Coke, the teller just paid a higher percentage of his income in taxes than the CEO did.

I'm not a fan of sales tax for that very reason. Same thing for highway tolls.

These taxes are designed to target the poor.

As far as a "flat tax" goes... I can see that, but only if the flat tax begins at a certain income level. Everyone who makes 50K and up might be able to afford 20% or whatever, but not someone who makes 20K. I know that that's not a "true" flat tax, but I think that's the closest you can get to it while ensuring that everyone pays a fair share.

Please note, that I'm not a fan of sales tax... but, when kept to a low enough level, I can understand if the purpose is to make sure that all citizens have some "skin in the game" with regard to how tax dollars are spent; same with minimal income tax for low income earners.

I'm just not a fan of taxes that target the poor.

Actually, the way FairTax is explained in the book there is a pre-bate for low income earners so they don't have to pay the full 22% sales tax. It's been a while since I read the book, but it was a pretty convincing stance on how FairTax can be a great alternative to the current tax system.

Rusty Jones
05-15-2015, 08:39 PM
So basically the poor shouldn't pay any taxes IYO.

You didn't read a goddamn thing I said.

sandsjames
05-15-2015, 08:40 PM
VAT tax is wrong, IMO. If a teller from BofA and the CEO of BofA each go to 7-Eleven to buy a Coke, the teller just paid a higher percentage of his income in taxes than the CEO did. The CEO buys more stuff so is paying more tax. He doesn't just pay the VAT on one car, he pays it on 5 cars.


I'm not a fan of sales tax for that very reason. Same thing for highway tolls.

These taxes are designed to target the poor. It does exactly the opposite. It targets those who have more money to spend.


As far as a "flat tax" goes... I can see that, but only if the flat tax begins at a certain income level. Everyone who makes 50K and up might be able to afford 20% or whatever, but not someone who makes 20K. I know that that's not a "true" flat tax, but I think that's the closest you can get to it while ensuring that everyone pays a fair share. I'll never understand the different rate for different incomes things. Now I wouldn't mind a cut-off. Nobody under the poverty line, or whatever arbitrary number is chosen pays the flat tax. As long as they realize that by paying no tax they are actually losing money because they aren't getting anything back.

10% is 10%, no matter what the income is. If not then where is the line drawn? The (perceived) problem we have right now is that the rich don't pay their fair share. That's because of all the loopholes and deductions. Get rid of those by making it a flat tax and they'd actually be paying more than they are now, even if it's only 10%.



I'm just not a fan of taxes that target the poor.I'm not a fan of that, either. Luckily, I can't think of any taxes that target the poor. In fact, it's quite the opposite. All the taxes help the poor by paying for their stuff.

Rusty Jones
05-15-2015, 08:44 PM
The problem with your assessment is that it assumes that rich people are going to spend more when that's not always the case.

sandsjames
05-15-2015, 08:47 PM
The problem with your assessment is that it assumes that rich people are going to spend more when that's not always the case. Very true.

Bos Mutus
05-15-2015, 08:52 PM
That's because of all the loopholes and deductions.

I think this is the problem a lot of people have with taxes...all of the deduction for this, and penalty for that makes them increasingly complicated.

Some of those deductions come about because that is how politicians pay back their donors..."help me get elected, I'm pushing for a solar energy tax credit which will help your business"

Now, there is a little chicken and egg thing going on...does Solar Town help Congressman Sun get elected because he is a big believer in solar and wants to help it in any way he can? Or is Congressman Sun such a big solar beleiver because the solar giants fund his campaign?

Hard to say, I'm sure a bit of both.

Deductions and loopholes also come about as a bit of social engineering on the part of the govt...oh, stable families are good for society, let's encourage that with a tax credit....home ownership is good for communities, tax deduction for mortgage interest makes it more beneficial to buy vs. rent...encourage people to donate to charity by making their contribution tax-deductable!

Rusty Jones
05-16-2015, 11:01 AM
http://www.fox46charlotte.com/story/29069546/salisbury-parent-angry-after-child-brings-home-meal-letter


A parent in Salisbury says his child suffered a big dose of embarrassment after he was sent to the back of the lunch line and given an alternative meal.

Jason Torres says all of this is because of a miscommunication with Koontz Elementary School.

Torres showed us a letter that got him angry. His eight-year-old son brought home a document showing a negative balance of $8.06 on his meal account.

“He came home with this letter and was like ‘Dad they gave me different food and they made me go to the back of the line.' He's young so he was kind of confused about it,” Torres said.

The parent shared with us that he normally paid for the second grader's meals through an online system called “PayForIt."

The school decided to do away with the system six weeks before the year ended.

The school told FOX46 parents were notified through e-mail about the system changes. The transition phasing out “PayForIt” began in April. On May 1st, parents could no longer make payments on there.

Torres says he was confused about the transition and never got notified about the negative balance on his child's account.

We contacted the school system and discovered the new software to pay for meals will not be effective until July.

Torres believes this leaves a huge gap right before the school year ends and that the change should have been planned for the beginning of the school year.

The school nutritionist tells us about 1200 parents used the old software. They're expecting that same amount to enroll into the new software which will be active in a few months.

Here's what I don't understand... schools cost money to run, do they not? Schools are supported by tax dollars, are they not? How much revenue is generated from money collected for payment of school lunch... how much is that, compared to what they receive in taxes?

Is payment for our children's school lunch not a "tax" itself?

This is why I think school lunches should be "free" for everyone. Think about it: we already pay for those who get free and reduced price lunches through taxes anyway. So why not just move payment for our own children's lunches to income tax, property tax, or selling more scratch cards and lottery tickets?

Afterall, the only kids in school who will get a hot meal every single time and never be told, "fuck you, here's a cheese sandwich" are kids who get free lunch.

sandsjames
05-16-2015, 04:36 PM
http://www.fox46charlotte.com/story/29069546/salisbury-parent-angry-after-child-brings-home-meal-letter



Here's what I don't understand... schools cost money to run, do they not? Schools are supported by tax dollars, are they not? How much revenue is generated from money collected for payment of school lunch... how much is that, compared to what they receive in taxes?

Is payment for our children's school lunch not a "tax" itself?

This is why I think school lunches should be "free" for everyone. Think about it: we already pay for those who get free and reduced price lunches through taxes anyway. So why not just move payment for our own children's lunches to income tax, property tax, or selling more scratch cards and lottery tickets?

Afterall, the only kids in school who will get a hot meal every single time and never be told, "fuck you, here's a cheese sandwich" are kids who get free lunch.

I've got no problem with it. Everyone should get a "free" lunch.

The one issue I could see is school cafeterias ending up needing 10 different menus for all the food allergy, food preference, etc. The school should go with one lunch menu and if people want something else then they bring their own.

I had free lunches at school 'til I was a sophomore, due to my parent's income. I can't see why others, who could afford to send sack lunches, should have to pay.

Rusty Jones
05-16-2015, 05:16 PM
I've got no problem with it. Everyone should get a "free" lunch.

The one issue I could see is school cafeterias ending up needing 10 different menus for all the food allergy, food preference, etc. The school should go with one lunch menu and if people want something else then they bring their own.

When I was in school, we had two choices of meat... and I think that's all you really need. If one meat was against your religion, you had the other. If one of the meats was fish, the other was chicken; so that someone with a religious objection to beef or pork wouldn't be forced to choose that or seafood if they're allergic to it. Vegetarians were given extra helpings of the vegetables in lieu of meat.


I had free lunches at school 'til I was a sophomore, due to my parent's income. I can't see why others, who could afford to send sack lunches, should have to pay.

Here's the thing... and I know this is a controversial subject; but, often times, it's not a question of affordability. Sometimes, parents put a bunch of bullshit in these kid's lunchboxes. Open up these lunchboxes, and it looks like the Little Debbie and Hostess shelf at the local convenience store.

People can argue "freedom of choice," but sometimes people are too stupid to be afforded that freedom... so that's when schools, unfortunately, have to step in.

sandsjames
05-16-2015, 05:27 PM
Here's the thing... and I know this is a controversial subject; but, often times, it's not a question of affordability. Sometimes, parents put a bunch of bullshit in these kid's lunchboxes. Open up these lunchboxes, and it looks like the Little Debbie and Hostess shelf at the local convenience store.

People can argue "freedom of choice," but sometimes people are too stupid to be afforded that freedom... so that's when schools, unfortunately, have to step in.Tough one. My friends always had a bunch of junk food in their lunch...but they also had normal meals when they were at home.

I think the lunches should be provided because, as you said, the taxes are paid. Wouldn't want to see them made mandatory, though. If school staff feels the kids being neglected, or whatever, based on junk food in their lunch then they can contact child services and let them sort it out.

garhkal
05-16-2015, 09:04 PM
You didn't read a goddamn thing I said.

I did. you seemed to repeatedly say you are not in favor of any tax that hits the poor. So effectively (IMO) that means you don't want the poor to pay any taxes.


The CEO buys more stuff so is paying more tax. He doesn't just pay the VAT on one car, he pays it on 5 cars.

Exactly. Poor people don't buy multiple cars, houses, etc.


I'll never understand the different rate for different incomes things. Now I wouldn't mind a cut-off. Nobody under the poverty line, or whatever arbitrary number is chosen pays the flat tax. As long as they realize that by paying no tax they are actually losing money because they aren't getting anything back.

But what is the determination of Poverty? 10k? 20k? 30K? Take me for instance. Just going by my mil retirement, i get 1,607.40 a month. That's barely 20k a year. So would i count as being in poverty?


10% is 10%, no matter what the income is. If not then where is the line drawn? The (perceived) problem we have right now is that the rich don't pay their fair share. That's because of all the loopholes and deductions. Get rid of those by making it a flat tax and they'd actually be paying more than they are now, even if it's only 10%.

True, the rich do have lots of 'loopholes' to claim, but when you see the poorer people getting to have so many tax credits, child credits etc, that they effectively get MORE back in a tax return than they ever paid, so their taxes effectively are nothing (other than sales tax) they are paying less than the rich do in 'their fair share'..


I think this is the problem a lot of people have with taxes...all of the deduction for this, and penalty for that makes them increasingly complicated.

Deductions and loopholes also come about as a bit of social engineering on the part of the govt...oh, stable families are good for society, let's encourage that with a tax credit....home ownership is good for communities, tax deduction for mortgage interest makes it more beneficial to buy vs. rent...encourage people to donate to charity by making their contribution tax-deductable!

Very true Bos. Though i wonder, if i was not able to claim my mortgage interest and such on my taxes, whether i would even be getting a tax return, compared to the roughly 2k i get as is (single, male, no kids).


Here's what I don't understand... schools cost money to run, do they not? Schools are supported by tax dollars, are they not? How much revenue is generated from money collected for payment of school lunch... how much is that, compared to what they receive in taxes?

Is payment for our children's school lunch not a "tax" itself?

This is why I think school lunches should be "free" for everyone. Think about it: we already pay for those who get free and reduced price lunches through taxes anyway. So why not just move payment for our own children's lunches to income tax, property tax, or selling more scratch cards and lottery tickets?

May i ask though, why you feel everyone should be paying more taxes for OTHER people's kids to eat? As is, i hate that those who buy houses and have no kids are hit by property taxes which are a big chunk of most schools 'incomes'.. So why raise their taxes MORE to yet again pay for everyone else's kid?

Bos Mutus
05-22-2015, 03:01 PM
How do people talk about the poor:



During a broad conversation on how to overcome poverty at Georgetown University last week, President Barack Obama made a few comments about how Fox News talks about poor people. Here's what he said (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/12/remarks-president-conversation-poverty-georgetown-university):
... over the last 40 years, sadly, I think there's been an effort to either make folks mad at folks at the top, or to be mad at folks at the bottom. And I think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don't want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. ... I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu -- they will find folks who make me mad ... They're like, I don't want to work, I just want a free Obama phone -- or whatever. And that becomes an entire narrative ... very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress -- which is much more typical -- who's raising a couple of kids and is doing everything right but still can't pay the bills.


Fox's response to the president was outrage that he would single them out and accuse them of demonizing the poor. Jon Stewart captured Fox's reaction (http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/q5tmo2/the-poor-you-know---did-you-even-try-to-research-this-) on his show last week. One example was Stuart Varney's reaction to Obama's remarks, claiming the network only looks at and critiques the programs, not the people, characterizing the hosts as the "honest messengers."

Stewart's segment on this is well worth watching (http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/q5tmo2/the-poor-you-know---did-you-even-try-to-research-this-) (if you aren't easily offended by his typically colorful and sometimes profane language). Other groups have meticulously documented (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/05/13/the-rich-suffered-more-the-worst-of-fox-news-po/203640) Fox's characterizations of poor people. Here are some examples that Stewart and others have lifted up of language Fox News has aired to describe "the poor:"
"America's poor are actually living the good life."
"A nation of Takers."
"Entitlement Mentality."
"The moocher class."
"Subsided freeloaders."
"People who sleep 'til noon."
"The handout nation rolls on."
"The image we have of poor people as starving and living in squalor really is not accurate. Many of them have things, what they lack is the richness of spirit." (That was Stuart Varney.)
"These programs do make people lazy."
"The true causes of poverty... are these: poor education, addiction, irresponsible behavior, and laziness"
"Addictive behavior, laziness and apathy all override social justice programs."
"They get food stamps, it makes it easy for them to sponge off of their girlfriends and spouses."
"The more of the leeches that he [Obama] can get to vote for him ..." "the 'Takers' are able to out-vote the 'Makers.'"


I find these characteristic caricatures morally and religiously offensive in speaking of those whom Jesus called "the least of these." So I thought it might be spiritually helpful to compare Fox's language about the poor to the language of Christ, both in substance and tone, and the deep feelings that these completely contrary languages, and their comparison, reveals. You've heard Fox on the poor; now hear Jesus:
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor" (Luke 4:18).
"The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them" (Matthew 11:5).
"If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me" (Matthew 19:21).
"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh." (Luke 6:20-21).
"When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." (Luke 14:12-14).
"Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me" (Matthew 25:34-36).
"Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me" (Matthew 25:40).
Honest discussions about the best approaches to overcome poverty are important and needed -- and that's what President Obama was doing at Georgetown, even sitting in a panel discussion about solutions with a both a liberal and a conservative who disagrees with him. Addressing both personal and social responsibility, family and economic issues, education and racism is crucial. But blaming and demonizing the poor is not called for -- it is shameful.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/who-said-it-fox-news-or-j_b_7421156.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Rusty Jones
05-22-2015, 03:26 PM
Overt racism fifty years ago kept the poor from being demonized, because it wasn't required - you were actually able to come out and say "black people." You can't do that now. You actually have to say "poor people." Or "thugs." Or "welfare queens." Or "hood rats."

Or some kind of other term that's "racially ambiguous," even if only at face value. And we know that it's only at face value, because we know who they're really referring to. Afterall, poor whites - even the ones on public assistance - are voting Republican because they feel that they're not among those being talked about when the poor are being bashed.

Before the current platforms of the Democratic and Republican Party, poor whites didn't get thrown under the bus because the Democrats were actually allowed to target blacks. The current Southern Strategy Republican Party can't do that. They can target blacks, but not without white collateral damage.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-22-2015, 05:47 PM
Afterall, poor whites - even the ones on public assistance - are voting Republican because they feel that they're not among those being talked about when the poor are being bashed.


How can you possibly know that is how poor white people feel?

Rusty Jones
05-22-2015, 05:54 PM
How can you possibly know that is how poor white people feel?

You act like they keep this a secret. They don't. They come right out and say it.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-22-2015, 06:52 PM
You act like they keep this a secret. They don't. They come right out and say it.

Say it to who?

Rusty Jones
05-22-2015, 07:02 PM
Say it to who?

Alright, let's skip any verbal gymnastics and just to get to what you want to say here.

Rusty Jones
05-22-2015, 07:20 PM
I'll humor you with a common example, that I see all time. I spent my teenage years in the semi-rural area of Kent County, Delaware; and you'll see this alot in Hampton Roads too: there's a sense of exceptionalism among whites when it comes to being on welfare. I've seen many lose their jobs and end up having to go on welfare, and you see the same story most of the time.

Granted, I'm not going to lie... if I end up having to go on welfare, I'm gonna act like a bitch too. But only because it's a shitty life that I don't want to live.

When I see poor whites go on welfare, they're going to make sure that you know that they how hard they tried to avoid it. That they're not like everyone else on welfare. Seeing this in person is one thing, but seeing it on the internet is fucking hillarious... because their friends will rally in emotional support, assuring them that they're not going to think any less of them because of it.

It's funny when someone becomes one of they very people they look down on, but still try to fight it with "but I'm different."

It's a nice slice of humble pie that their bodies are rejecting.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-22-2015, 08:21 PM
I'll humor you with a common example, that I see all time. I spent my teenage years in the semi-rural area of Kent County, Delaware; and you'll see this alot in Hampton Roads too: there's a sense of exceptionalism among whites when it comes to being on welfare. I've seen many lose their jobs and end up having to go on welfare, and you see the same story most of the time.

Granted, I'm not going to lie... if I end up having to go on welfare, I'm gonna act like a bitch too. But only because it's a shitty life that I don't want to live.

When I see poor whites go on welfare, they're going to make sure that you know that they how hard they tried to avoid it. That they're not like everyone else on welfare. Seeing this in person is one thing, but seeing it on the internet is fucking hillarious... because their friends will rally in emotional support, assuring them that they're not going to think any less of them because of it.

It's funny when someone becomes one of they very people they look down on, but still try to fight it with "but I'm different."

It's a nice slice of humble pie that their bodies are rejecting.

No verbal gymnastics, I was just curious as to how you gained a pipeline to the thoughts of poor white folk.

I get it now. After you grew up in Mr. T's housing project, you moved to Kent County, Delaware to chill with the white folks.

Did you pick up any good Spam recipes?

Rusty Jones
05-22-2015, 11:23 PM
No verbal gymnastics, I was just curious as to how you gained a pipeline to the thoughts of poor white folk.

I get it now. After you grew up in Mr. T's housing project, you moved to Kent County, Delaware to chill with the white folks.

Did you pick up any good Spam recipes?

Yeah, a Filipino neighbor showed me one called bakla. Didn't look interesting to me, but I think it's right up your alley.

TJMAC77SP
05-23-2015, 03:55 AM
Yeah, a Filipino neighbor showed me one called bakla. Didn't look interesting to me, but I think it's right up your alley.

And, yet another homoerotic reference. Somebody got their feel goods hurt again.

Rusty Jones
05-23-2015, 11:31 AM
And, yet another homoerotic reference. Somebody got their feel goods hurt again.

AA took his shot, I took mine. What's the problem? You want some bakla too?

sandsjames
05-23-2015, 12:10 PM
No matter what the reason is, maybe if more people "acted" embarrassed to be on welfare then we wouldn't have so many on welfare.

Rusty Jones
05-23-2015, 12:30 PM
No matter what the reason is, maybe if more people "acted" embarrassed to be on welfare then we wouldn't have so many on welfare.

It really doesn't matter. If people are in a situation where they have to go on it, they're gonna go on it. If people are going to starve and let their children starve right along with them because of their pride, then that's indicative of other issues.

Here's another thing to think about... in AA's questioning of how I know what poor whites think, yadda yadda... let me ask you this, and be honest: the people that I described in those scenarios, where they're concerned about convincing themselves and others that they're "different" from other people on welfare. If you were to end up in an unfortunate situation where you had to go on welfare to feed your family, would you be doing something similar? Be honest.

TJMAC77SP
05-23-2015, 02:26 PM
AA took his shot, I took mine. What's the problem? You want some bakla too?

But unfortunately for you his 'shot' was more on the mark (you seem to have led several lives simultaneously). Your 'shot' on the other hand was yet another moment dedicated to your homoerotic obsession.

TJMAC77SP
05-23-2015, 02:29 PM
It really doesn't matter. If people are in a situation where they have to go on it, they're gonna go on it. If people are going to starve and let their children starve right along with them because of their pride, then that's indicative of other issues.

Here's another thing to think about... in AA's questioning of how I know what poor whites think, yadda yadda... let me ask you this, and be honest: the people that I described in those scenarios, where they're concerned about convincing themselves and others that they're "different" from other people on welfare. If you were to end up in an unfortunate situation where you had to go on welfare to feed your family, would you be doing something similar? Be honest.

So, is your assertion that only white people who's circumstances result in them going on welfare think they are different the others on welfare?

I am going to do you a favor here and tell you that assertion would be on par with your business model small businesses (the whole "have a large family and put them all to work" model).

Rusty Jones
05-23-2015, 02:33 PM
But unfortunately for you his 'shot' was more on the mark (you seem to have led several lives simultaneously). Your 'shot' on the other hand was yet another moment dedicated to your homoerotic obsession.

What are you supposed to be, some kind of MTF referee or something? I really don't know why I keep paying attention to your worthless assessments of what's going on here.

Rusty Jones
05-23-2015, 02:34 PM
So, is your assertion that only white people who's circumstances result in them going on welfare think they are different the others on welfare?

Yep. They're voting Republican, aren't they?


I am going to do you a favor here and tell you that assertion would be on par with your business model small businesses (the whole "have a large family and put them all to work" model).

In other words, it's right on point. Thank you.

sandsjames
05-23-2015, 03:44 PM
It really doesn't matter. If people are in a situation where they have to go on it, they're gonna go on it. If people are going to starve and let their children starve right along with them because of their pride, then that's indicative of other issues.

Here's another thing to think about... in AA's questioning of how I know what poor whites think, yadda yadda... let me ask you this, and be honest: the people that I described in those scenarios, where they're concerned about convincing themselves and others that they're "different" from other people on welfare. If you were to end up in an unfortunate situation where you had to go on welfare to feed your family, would you be doing something similar? Be honest.

I'd go on it. Absolutely. It's about not wanting to be on it so you actually make the effort to get off it.

Rusty Jones
05-23-2015, 03:52 PM
I'd go on it. Absolutely. It's about not wanting to be on it so you actually make the effort to get off it.

The question wasn't whether or not you'd go on it. The question already assumes you would. The question was whether or not you'd constantly feel the need to convince yourself and/or others that you're different from other people who are on it.

TJMAC77SP
05-23-2015, 05:12 PM
Yep. They're voting Republican, aren't they?

I don't know and am not sure how that proves your assertion that white people on welfare think they're 'different' and black people on welfare don't.



In other words, it's right on point. Thank you.

No actually they are both equally stupid assertions. I suppose if that is considered 'on point' then you are absolutely correct.

You're welcome

TJMAC77SP
05-23-2015, 05:14 PM
What are you supposed to be, some kind of MTF referee or something? I really don't know why I keep paying attention to your worthless assessments of what's going on here.

I think you meant my assessments of your (sometimes) worthless contributions. My assessments of your flagrantly manufactured 'facts' and my assessment of your racism.

We already have referees on the MTF, I am not one of them.

As to your question, don't we still have an ignore button here?

Rusty Jones
05-23-2015, 05:22 PM
I don't know and am not sure how that proves your assertion that white people on welfare think they're 'different' and black people on welfare don't.

Tell you what; you don't live too far from me. Why don't you come up to my neck of the woods, and we'll go to the various housing projects and ask around. Let's try to find some of these black people who think they're different from the rest.

I can assure you, even with my current job and education level, I sure as fuck wouldn't be among them. I know better. If a man can have a law degree from Harvard and be referred to as "the food stamp president" (and he's not even on food stamps) it wouldn't make the slightest difference how hard I tried to distinguish myself from others on welfare. Any black person is fully aware of this.


No actually they are both equally stupid assertions. I suppose if that is considered 'on point' then you are absolutely correct.

You're welcome

Yet, they're things that I have personal experience with and you don't. Yet you keep talking.

Rusty Jones
05-23-2015, 05:26 PM
I think you meant my assessments of your (sometimes) worthless contributions. My assessments of your flagrantly manufactured 'facts' and my assessment of your racism.

We already have referees on the MTF, I am not one of them.

As to your question, don't we still have an ignore button here?

Yeah, my racism... sorry bud, it's still you. Afterall... I'm half white. My ex-wife... white. I have two white daughters, whom I've adopted.

Why don't you just come out and say... that you don't like what I'm saying.

Do I make generalized comments? Of course, but for the ease of conversation, it's already presumed that I mean "not all." SJ and I have had conversations where he's made comments about black people in the same context. Have I beaten him up for it? Nope. Have you? Nope. Hell, have you even beaten up Rainmaker for the shit he says? Nope. Probably because you agree with it.

TJMAC77SP
05-23-2015, 05:50 PM
Yeah, my racism... sorry bud, it's still you. Afterall... I'm half white. My ex-wife... white. I have two white daughters, whom I've adopted.

Why don't you just come out and say... that you don't like what I'm saying.

Do I make generalized comments? Of course, but for the ease of conversation, it's already presumed that I mean "not all." SJ and I have had conversations where he's made comments about black people in the same context. Have I beaten him up for it? Nope. Have you? Nope. Hell, have you even beaten up Rainmaker for the shit he says? Nope. Probably because you agree with it.

Why in God's name would you attempt to assert that I am being obtuse about what you say. I am quite clear about that. While this opinion doesn't hold true with everything you write, I find the vast majority to be utterly ridiculous. I most definitely don't like much of what you say.

Let's look at this post.

Your counterpoint to me saying you are racist is to call me a racist and cite your mixed heritage, your ex-wife's and two adopted daughters ethnicity. What the hell does that prove? Very much akin to the old..."I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are................."

So then to further bolster your 'point', such that it is, you want to assert that I agree with the stuff Rainmaker posts, ignoring the fact that on many occasions I have posted counterpoints to his diatribes.

If you paint a whole group with the same brush it is intellectually flawed and a weak argument. Couple that with making completely unproven (and unprovable) assertions at the same time and you have a post I find ridiculous.

Rusty Jones
05-23-2015, 05:56 PM
Your counterpoint to me saying you are racist is to call me a racist and cite your mixed heritage, your ex-wife's and two adopted daughters ethnicity. What the hell does that prove? Very much akin to the old..."I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are................."

When those "my best friends are black" types can produce a black parent, black adopted children, and a black spouse (current or former); then we can consider them to be on the same level.


So then to further bolster your 'point', such that it is, you want to assert that I agree with the stuff Rainmaker posts, ignoring the fact that on many occasions I have posted counterpoints to his diatribes.

Not on his racism.


If you paint a whole group with the same brush it is intellectually flawed and a weak argument. Couple that with making completely unproven (and unprovable) assertions at the same time and you have a post I find ridiculous.

Okay, so you find it ridiculous. What now?

TJMAC77SP
05-23-2015, 05:56 PM
Tell you what; you don't live too far from me. Why don't you come up to my neck of the woods, and we'll go to the various housing projects and ask around. Let's try to find some of these black people who think they're different from the rest.

I can assure you, even with my current job and education level, I sure as fuck wouldn't be among them. I know better. If a man can have a law degree from Harvard and be referred to as "the food stamp president" (and he's not even on food stamps) it wouldn't make the slightest difference how hard I tried to distinguish myself from others on welfare. Any black person is fully aware of this.

Can you possibly cite something real and tangible and avoid references to Obama who has nothing to do with this discussion. Was he on welfare in DE? Did you know that the chief suspect in the filling of the four people in DC (to include a young boy) is black?

Thought I would give your tactic a try. Not really making any sense though.


Yet, they're things that I have personal experience with and you don't. Yet you keep talking.

Yes we know you know a small business being run by a large family and you assert that all white people on welfare think they are different.

Not sure how this makes any positive effect on your argument.

sandsjames
05-23-2015, 05:56 PM
The question wasn't whether or not you'd go on it. The question already assumes you would. The question was whether or not you'd constantly feel the need to convince yourself and/or others that you're different from other people who are on it.

Hard to say. I've already convinced myself that I'm different than those who misuse it (my cousin, for instance) but I wouldn't need to convince anyone else, other than by finding a way out of it.

Rusty Jones
05-23-2015, 06:01 PM
Can you possibly cite something real and tangible and avoid references to Obama who has nothing to do with this discussion. Was he on welfare in DE? Did you know that the chief suspect in the filling of the four people in DC (to include a young boy) is black?

Thought I would give your tactic a try. Not really making any sense though.

Then you obviously missed my point. My point was that there's nothing to gain by a black person on welfare trying to distinguish himself from others on welfare. Because, at the end of the day, he's seen as just another welfare recipient. Even Obama can't escape being associated with welfare; so how can any black man? Especially if he actually ended up on it, regardless of the circumstances that led to it?




Yes we know you know a small business being run by a large family and you assert that all white people on welfare think they are different.

Not sure how this makes any positive effect on your argument.

Didn't we already clear up the "all" part?

Rusty Jones
05-23-2015, 06:20 PM
Hard to say. I've already convinced myself that I'm different than those who misuse it (my cousin, for instance) but I wouldn't need to convince anyone else, other than by finding a way out of it.

How is your cousin misusing it?

Alright, despite accusations "multiple lives" by AA and TJ (I never claimed to be from Robert Taylor or anywhere in Chicago), my timeline is this:

My toddler years up until the age of nine was spent in New London, CT.
From age nine to thirteen was in Norfolk (out of these four years, about six months was in Salisbury, Maryland).
From age thirteen to the time I joined the Navy at 20 is when I lived in Delaware.

It was my time in New London that I grew up on welfare and in public housing. How did we get off of those things? Was it because my mother got a job? No. At the time, I was one of three children by three fathers. My brother's father died in a car accident, and the survivor benefits from social security disqualified us from welfare. We still got food stamps, though. And that's what we all continued to live on until I joined the Navy and, eventually, it stopped once my brother turned 18 and was out of school.

Anyhow, the shame was there... and I used to resent my mother for it. She passed away back in 2007.

I learned, after it was too late, much of the mindset behind those on welfare who aren't seeking work. And, in some ways, I can relate. When watching a documentary on the Cabrini-Green housing projects; they describe a sense of hopelessness and unworthiness of having a job; and even if they were to get one, would they even be accepted among the ranks of the working class?

I then reflected on a situation when I was in high school in which I could relate - and maybe some of you can as well: during my first two years of high school, I got shitty grades. I was barely passing my classes. I didn't think myself to be capable of getting better grades, and if I did... I'd have new academic peers, and I'd be terrified to seek their company. I'd be "one of them," but would I really be accepted?

In retrospect, that was my mother's problem. I was actually able to overcome that in my academics, and push for higher grades in my latter two years of high school; and, as an undergrad, I only had one semester in which I failed to make the Dean's or President's List. But not everyone is able to do that.

Could that be your cousin's story? I don't know. But in those types of situations, I don't consider it to be "abuse." There's simply a feeling of being trapped in one's situation.

garhkal
05-23-2015, 07:56 PM
No matter what the reason is, maybe if more people "acted" embarrassed to be on welfare then we wouldn't have so many on welfare.

Maybe if we stopped giving them the money directly on EBT cards, and went back to the IMO shaming food stamps, we might see a reduction.


The question wasn't whether or not you'd go on it. The question already assumes you would. The question was whether or not you'd constantly feel the need to convince yourself and/or others that you're different from other people who are on it.


Rusty, the issue imo is NOT whether someone goes on it who needs or doesn't need it, its more that too many just STAY On it and don't try to get out, cause they are getting so much in govt subsidies, tax credits etc, they don't see a reason to get off it.

Rusty Jones
05-23-2015, 08:07 PM
Maybe if we stopped giving them the money directly on EBT cards, and went back to the IMO shaming food stamps, we might see a reduction.

I doubt it. In fact, if I were to lose my job and exhaust all of my money and ended up having to go on SNAP; I could see myself driving right on over to the highly conservative city of Virginia Beach to do my grocery shopping. I don't even eat lobster, but I'd probably buy one along with a few other items that people think I shouldn't be eating and place that stuff right at the top of the shopping cart. I'd then whip out my EBT card (or food stamps, in your scenario) to make sure everybody saw it, and I'd have a nice big smile on my face as I look at everyone standing behind me in line.

And then, of course, I'd hand the lobster to the homeless man standing in front of the store begging for money. And I'd make sure that the people who saw me buying the lobster with the EBT/food stamps also saw me handing it to the homeless man.

Yeah, I'm like that.


Rusty, the issue imo is NOT whether someone goes on it who needs or doesn't need it, its more that too many just STAY On it and don't try to get out, cause they are getting so much in govt subsidies, tax credits etc, they don't see a reason to get off it.

Like who?

sandsjames
05-24-2015, 01:17 PM
How is your cousin misusing it?

Alright, despite accusations "multiple lives" by AA and TJ (I never claimed to be from Robert Taylor or anywhere in Chicago), my timeline is this:

My toddler years up until the age of nine was spent in New London, CT.
From age nine to thirteen was in Norfolk (out of these four years, about six months was in Salisbury, Maryland).
From age thirteen to the time I joined the Navy at 20 is when I lived in Delaware.

It was my time in New London that I grew up on welfare and in public housing. How did we get off of those things? Was it because my mother got a job? No. At the time, I was one of three children by three fathers. My brother's father died in a car accident, and the survivor benefits from social security disqualified us from welfare. We still got food stamps, though. And that's what we all continued to live on until I joined the Navy and, eventually, it stopped once my brother turned 18 and was out of school.

Anyhow, the shame was there... and I used to resent my mother for it. She passed away back in 2007.

I learned, after it was too late, much of the mindset behind those on welfare who aren't seeking work. And, in some ways, I can relate. When watching a documentary on the Cabrini-Green housing projects; they describe a sense of hopelessness and unworthiness of having a job; and even if they were to get one, would they even be accepted among the ranks of the working class?

I then reflected on a situation when I was in high school in which I could relate - and maybe some of you can as well: during my first two years of high school, I got shitty grades. I was barely passing my classes. I didn't think myself to be capable of getting better grades, and if I did... I'd have new academic peers, and I'd be terrified to seek their company. I'd be "one of them," but would I really be accepted?

In retrospect, that was my mother's problem. I was actually able to overcome that in my academics, and push for higher grades in my latter two years of high school; and, as an undergrad, I only had one semester in which I failed to make the Dean's or President's List. But not everyone is able to do that.

Could that be your cousin's story? I don't know. But in those types of situations, I don't consider it to be "abuse." There's simply a feeling of being trapped in one's situation.

He's been misusing it for the last 20 years. He'll get a job just long enough to earn some unemployment benefits. Once those run out he goes on welfare. He applies for college grants (and gets them) but doesn't go to college. He has another kid every 3 or 4 years to ensure he always stays in that category for the big tax returns (while paying nothing in). There are minimum wage jobs here and there that he'll do until he hits the point of being able to collect more benefits. He's a profession welfare/government assistance user. The worst part is he feels it's somehow owed to him and he doesn't have the least bit of guilt about it.

Tum8
01-28-2016, 11:51 AM
If this article is correct, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/big-ceo-pay-grabeffects-b_b_8993870.html The top 200 CEO's in the U.S. make an average salary of $22.6 million per year. That's the average! With Social Security having a pay cap of $118,500 according to the Social Security website. They and their company only pay Social Security tax on .52% of their income. So for every $100 they make they pay the tax of 6.2% on 52 cents of that 100 dollars. A contractor making 118,500 or less pays a tax rate of 12.4% on the whole $100.Check out the Social Security website, look at the tax rate and tax caps. If the cap is removed from Social Security and the CEO's and companies are taxed on 100% of their income. Some people want to get rid of Social Security and go private all I can think of is ENRON and Bernie Madoff, or the stories of senior citizens and the disabled eating catfood again to stay alive.

Rainmaker
01-28-2016, 06:07 PM
If this article is correct, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/big-ceo-pay-grabeffects-b_b_8993870.html The top 200 CEO's in the U.S. make an average salary of $22.6 million per year. That's the average! With Social Security having a pay cap of $118,500 according to the Social Security website. They and their company only pay Social Security tax on .52% of their income. So for every $100 they make they pay the tax of 6.2% on 52 cents of that 100 dollars. A contractor making 118,500 or less pays a tax rate of 12.4% on the whole $100.Check out the Social Security website, look at the tax rate and tax caps. If the cap is removed from Social Security and the CEO's and companies are taxed on 100% of their income. Some people want to get rid of Social Security and go private all I can think of is ENRON and Bernie Madoff, or the stories of senior citizens and the disabled eating catfood again to stay alive.


new blood! welcome to the forum. Here's Rainmaker's 2 cents....

This article doesn't make it clear. but, executives are paid mostly based on shareholder value and in stock options and less salary. also, the very top 20 or so, greatly skews the average.

After the last crisis, The Corrupt Socialist Obama administration and the Corrupt socialist RINO Opposition decided to let The Corrupt Socialist Central Bankers at the Corrupt FED, that intentionally bankrupted the Corrupt American public get away with continuing to act as menaces to society, rather than reigning in the corruption.

Bernie Madoff was made the sacrificial lamb (we won't say why). But, Check out who former AG Eric My People Holder currently works for. So, Until they move to change that, all these discussions about what to do about "income inequality" are fucking a moot point.

If the Government quit flooding the country with illegal immigrants and put import tarrifs on shit goods made in the 3rd world by peasants working in sweat shops, then wages would rise without the need for communist price fixing of the labor price.

So, Just Throwing a few dollars at the Plebes working some shit Minimum wage Jobs is just going to be putting lipstick on the pig.

But, given the state of the Economy, I'm not really opposed to it.

But, We need the government to set conditions so, that it's actually more profitable for companies to start making stuff here again