Good article about how "flat" our tax system is

[Meat Face]

Government grants?  Federally-subsidized loans?

 

793010[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

dunno. probably. Point is, she did what any other poor person could have done.

[Squeegiebo]

dunno.  probably.  Point is, she did what any other poor person could have done.

 

793055[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Right. What any other poor person (who is smart enought to get into college) could have done thanks to tax-funded programs that you want to eliminate.

[skins]

dunno.  probably.  Point is, she did what any other poor person could have done.

793055[/snapback]

 

 

Right.  What any other  poor person (who is smart enought to get into college) could have done thanks to tax-funded programs that you want to eliminate.

793164[/snapback]

 

Meat, why do you hate yer girlfriend and think shes a welfare mooch leech? Tell her I want her to reimburse my money she stole.

[Ursa Majoris]

i think that's true without question.  who are the poor in america?  from what i've seen, mostly they're either families (unsually single-parent) who have fallen on rough times (and i'm all for helping this category of folks in some way, though creating government dependency is probably the worst thing we could do for them), or they're people who just don't try.  maybe they don't try because they're mentally ill, or drug-dependent, or because life has just dealt them a terrible series of blows, or maybe they are just plain lazy.  but it's awfully hard for society as a whole, through their government, to help people who just won't try to help themselves.

792937[/snapback]

 

I don't think anyone here wants to throw bags of cash at the feckless and the terminally idle. The crack ho stereotype is real enough - but what about crack ho's kids? Do we let them rot too? We can find common ground in not helping those that won't help themselves, perhaps, but their offspring? I think we have to try.

[Azazello1313]

I don't think anyone here wants to throw bags of cash at the feckless and the terminally idle.  The crack ho stereotype is real enough - but what about crack ho's kids?  Do we let them rot too?  We can find common ground in not helping those that won't help themselves, perhaps, but their offspring?  I think we have to try.

 

793590[/snapback]

 

 

 

but how? the only way i can see that "we" (under the auspices of our government) could rescue kids from systematically destructive family situations is to pluck them out of these homes and put them in orphanages or something. and maybe that's something we ought to actually consider in more cases than we do, but it's not like it's a terribly appealing alternative on all sorts of levels.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Hey how about a license to have kids??

[Ursa Majoris]

but how?  the only way i can see that "we" (under the auspices of our government) could rescue kids from systematically destructive family situations is to pluck them out of these homes and put them in orphanages or something.  and maybe that's something we ought to actually consider in more cases than we do, but it's not like it's a terribly appealing alternative on all sorts of levels.

 

794084[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

No, it's not very appealing on many levels. Neither is fostering. I don't have pat answers to these questions - I do know that abandoning small children to their fate isn't the right thing to do in either the short or long terms.

[H8tank]

I do know that abandoning small children to their fate isn't the right thing to do in either the short or long terms.

 

 

Airport screening is going back to private firms, why don't we abandon this public education experiment and privatize it. You give a firm the kind of money public schools get we'd have the smartest electorate in no time....

 

course the dems will NEVER go with this cause they need the gov't schools to indoctrinate the kids into their way of thinking... NO individuality.

[H8tank]

Hey foreskins, if county's are such a good measuring stick, shall we see how many counties voted for W?

 

The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by county, but had all districts but one of the two in Juneau vote for Bush).

 

LOL, you moran.

[Meat Face]

Right.  What any other  poor person (who is smart enought to get into college) could have done thanks to tax-funded programs that you want to eliminate.

 

793164[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

When did I ever say I wanted to eliminate college grants and loans (don't forget that you have to pay back loans). Please find the quote........:looks at watch:.......I'm waiting.......while you're searching for that non-existent post, I should point out that it doesn't even matter what I think. The point is that she used the system *as it currently exists*, which anyone else can also do.

[skins]

When did I ever say I wanted to eliminate college grants and loans (don't forget that you have to pay back loans).  Please find the quote........:looks at watch:.......I'm waiting.......while you're searching for that non-existent post, I should point out that it doesn't even matter what I think.  The point is that she used the system *as it currently exists*, which anyone else can also do.

 

794465[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

She stole my hard earned tax dollars. Leech.

[Meat Face]

She stole my hard earned tax dollars. Leech.

 

794483[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I agree.

[Azazello1313]

that article actually doesn't have a chart logging shifts in who's bearing the tax burden over time.

 

790105[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

yeah, i wonder why...from today's wall street journal...

 

An IRS study by a trio of tax wonks shows that, even after including Social Security taxes, the overall tax burden grew more progressive from 1979 to 1999. And while that burden became a tad less progressive after the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the rich and upper middle class continued to pay far and away the bulk of U.S. taxes.

 

The study in question, by Michael Strudler and Tom Petska of the IRS and Ryan Petska of Ernst and Young, reports this data:

 

Share of Taxes (Income & Social Security) Paid By Income ClassesCategory of Earners      1979          1999           1999 (at 2003 rates)Top .1%                   5.06%       11.05%         9.52%Top 5%                    14.69%      16.84%         17.75%Top 20%                   58.28%      68.17%         67.47%Bottom 20%                 1.22%       0.63%         0.65%

 

[Ursa Majoris]

Why can't we raise the threshold beneath which no taxes are paid rather than dickering with the brackets?

[Squeegiebo]

When did I ever say I wanted to eliminate college grants and loans (don't forget that you have to pay back loans).  Please find the quote........:looks at watch:.......I'm waiting.......while you're searching for that non-existent post, I should point out that it doesn't even matter what I think.  The point is that she used the system *as it currently exists*, which anyone else can also do.

 

794465[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Sorry I couldn't respond right away - I was out of the office all day.

My impression that you wanted to get rid of government-funded educational programs was based on your statements in the following posts (which are not in quote form because of the limitation on the number of quotes allowed:

 

 

don't forget, the huge problem is not how people are taxed but rather how the money is spent. And how MUCH money is spent. This is what's out of control.

 

 

..... We aren't commies, so there are going to be poor people no matter what. Yes, it's unfortunate for the poor kids that they were born into a bad situation, but what does that have to do with taxes? Not everyone can be equal, because certain folks work harder and/or are smarter. Theoretically they can bust ass and make it if they want. This is America still. Check out the 'Reallionaire' kid.

 

So, is it the fault of a poor kid that he's born into a crappy situation? No.

Is it his fault if he doesn't take advantage of all the great opportunities America has to offer - college, etc? Yes.

Is it the fault of more wealthy people (you, for example) that the poor are the way they are? No.

Should you be required to subsidize someone who chooses to sit on their ass their whole life? No.

Can you if you want to? Yes, it's called charity.

.....

 

 

You're missing the point, good sir. I agree with your values. I just don't think they should be government-mandated. See the difference? People should be free to do those things if they choose. I just don't think it's the government's responsibility to do them.

.....

 

 

.....I happen to believe government's function is not a charity house (that's a church's job), but that's just my opinion.

 

You're complaining that the govenment spends too much on social programs, note that the handouts should be based on free-will (charity) rather than mandated by government (tax dollars), at the same time that you are talking about the opportunities that poor kids have to better themselves. My point is that these opportunities are created largely by tax dollars - grants are handouts, and federal loans, while they do have to be repaid, are subsidized by federal tax dollars to (1) ensure that they are available to all students regardless of the economic situation and (2) to keep rates lower than they would be on the open market.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it seems to me that you want the government to stop all of this social-program spending on the one hand, claiming it is the province of charities rather than government, but on the other hand you rely on this government spending to explain why poor people have every opportunity to better themselves.

[Azazello1313]

come on squeeg, that's ridiculous. meat says he thinks we spend too much on handouts, and that means he's advocating getting rid of all federal student loan (which people presumably pay BACK) programs? that would be like me saying that because you want higher taxes you're a communist.

 

ok, bad example..

[Meat Face]

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it seems to me that you want the government to stop all of this social-program spending on the one hand, claiming it is the province of charities rather than government, but on the other hand you rely on this government spending to explain why poor people have every opportunity to better themselves.

 

794579[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Well then we've come to an excellent point of compromise. I'll let you keep your education handouts (especially the one where you pay it back) while we get rid of all other forms of welfare (sit-on-your-ass welfare, corporate welfare, etc). No party can get everything they want. If only the real government were this reasonable. Although, I suppose 'reason' is that last thing we should expect from democraps and returdlicans.

 

:shakeshands:

[skins]

Although, I suppose 'reason' is that last thing we should expect from democraps and returdlicans. 

 

 

794637[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Lucky for me Im a an independent. Whew.

[driveby]

Lucky for me Im a an independent.

 

794647[/snapback]

 

 

 

From what? Reality?

 

Independent?

[Squeegiebo]

Well then we've come to an excellent point of compromise.  I'll let you keep your education handouts (especially the one where you pay it back) while we get rid of all other forms of welfare (sit-on-your-ass welfare, corporate welfare, etc).  No party can get everything they want.  If only the real government were this reasonable.  Although, I suppose 'reason' is that last thing we should expect from democraps and returdlicans. 

 

:shakeshands:

 

794637[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Not so fast, sparky. I still wanna give handouts to the old fawkers and the tards.

[driveby]

Not so fast, sparky.  I still wanna give handouts to the old fawkers and the tards.

 

795452[/snapback]

 

 

 

Gotta keep the base happy.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Gotta keep the base happy.

 

795475[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That's 2.

[Squeegiebo]

Gotta keep the base happy.

 

795475[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

:doah:

 

[H8tank]

BISCHSLAPPED!

[Meat Face]

wow this is an old thread.