Did you know people are poor?

[Perchoutofwater]

Are republicans typically on the right? To be honest, that is my understanding but perhaps I am wrong. I can only assume that "almost everyone on the right" decided that they would "like to abolish the income tax, or at the very least get rid of all deductions and go to a flat tax" sometime after 2006, given that from 2000-2006 the republicans owned the white house and congress. I'll be honest, I did not follow this very closely and perhaps missed the republican efforts enact this legislation.

 

I stated most, not all, and Republicans never had anywhere near a filibuster breaking majority to get it it passed. It has been brought up on several occasions and died in committee.

[yo mama]

No doubt there are certain segments that have a vested interest in keeping it the way it is. Of course the American Bar Association typically falls on the left hand side of the divide. I'm not sure about the bean counters. Point being those that don't work in the "tax industry" on the right typically (not even all of them) want a simplified tax system that is either a flat tax or a consumption tax. Both of these would help do a way with the majority of the "tax industry", and tax evasion. Or, at the very least make tax evasion much easier to catch and prosecute.

The tax code is complicated because BUSINESS wants it that way. Behind every loophole is a lobbyist who fought for it, and a business interest that paid for it. Sure, some lawyers and accountants make a living navigating the complexity, but they can hardly be blamed for creating it.

[bushwacked]

The tax code is complicated because BUSINESS wants it that way. Behind every loophole is a lobbyist who fought for it, and a business interest that paid for it. Sure, some lawyers and accountants make a living navigating the complexity, but they can hardly be blamed for creating it.

 

So everyone on the right wants to simplify the tax code until they stand to gain financially and politically. Not that all other politicians aren't the same.

[Delicious_bass]

Sooo most people simple CHOOSE to be poor? Is that the direction here? People available for food stamps make under 22k a year. I think you are confusing destitute people in shelters with what we are talking about here. IMO we are talking about people that make under the poverty threshold and cant get out. Even being under 22k can mean you have a Christmas gift . . and the majority of US society is hell bent of video games and TV.

 

The point I offer is that without proper education to help these people learn the differences between these decisons, it is a self-fulfilling circle of poverty. Better options for food that dont involve fast food. In fact, I encoiurage you to look up the problem of "food deserts" in urban areas that prevent poor people from having access to healthier food choices. I was seriously asking if schools still teaach Home Ec and the food pyramid, (my kids are too little) because I see that as well as Gym class being important to combat childhood obesity.

 

Yourlink between the two is valid, but to me the problem of education and oipportunity continue to be paramount. If parents are not taught skills of what proper food is for kids/themselves or how to cook, or how to balance a checkbook properly then how can they teach those things to their kids? This is a circular argument . . .

 

There is no doubt that people make bad choices. I offer that what seems common sense to you or I, may not be to others. I assume that you understand that armed robbery is wrong, and a bad choice. But if you cant get a job what seems so obvious to us as a bad choice can be appealing to others. No one that spends (wastes) time on internet fantasy football message boards can honestly say they are in that situation and explain that feeling of hopelessness to others. IMO cavalierly dismissing them is also wrong and does nothing to change the endemic problem of maintaining a permanent underclass.

Interesting...I said a lot of people are mired in poverty because of bad choices and you read it as me saying "most" people choose to be poor.

 

Anyway, you may be correct that we may be looking at/commenting on different actual levels of poverty. I guess when I think of people who likely wont eat unless food/help is given to them, I am picturing people that are in pretty dire situations. I am not picturing people sitting in front of a tv playing PS3. I am assuming if food is no guarantee for these people, video games/systems costing hundred's of dollars would be only a dream for them. I will fully admit I may be completely naive here, though...

 

I fully agree with you that poor parents who dont know any better likely will not have any wealth/knowlege/life skills to pass on to their kids. That's why I said its these people that have no business having kids when they cant take care of themselves. And while I'll buy that education is needed to help these people with some things(ie nutrition), I am having a hard time believing there are too many people in this country over the age of 14 who dont know that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. I mean, lets cut the chit here. Its almost 2010. People in this country cant really be that clueless, can they? Yet some of this stuff has been problems for these people for years?

 

Just as a reminder, my first commentary in this thread was in response to gbpfan who said(paraphrasing) he didnt think poor people should be cranking out kids. I happen to agree with this as(like you have pointed out) it is an infinite cycle of poverty when people who cant care for themselves continue to reproduce. The thread has since wandered around a bit, but the main point I was trying to make (and susequently support) is that people who are incapable of taking proper care of themselves (therfore relying on others for help) should not be having kids and adding them to the cycle

[Perchoutofwater]

The tax code is complicated because BUSINESS wants it that way. Behind every loophole is a lobbyist who fought for it, and a business interest that paid for it. Sure, some lawyers and accountants make a living navigating the complexity, but they can hardly be blamed for creating it.

 

I doubt you will find many business owners that want it that way. The majority of us would prefer a lower rate with no loopholes. Yes, as long as we keep jacking up tax rates and playing favorites with the tax law then businesses are going to keep lobbying for loopholes, but to say that business wants it that way is not true, or at least not true of any business owner I know except for CPA's, tax lawyers, and estate planners.

[untateve]

I I am having a hard time believing there are too many people in this country over the age of 14 who dont know that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. I mean, lets cut the chit here. Its almost 2010. People in this country cant really be that clueless, can they? Yet some of this stuff has been problems for these people for years?

 

Just as a reminder, my first commentary in this thread was in response to gbpfan who said(paraphrasing) he didnt think poor people should be cranking out kids. I happen to agree with this as(like you have pointed out) it is an infinite cycle of poverty when people who cant care for themselves continue to reproduce. The thread has since wandered around a bit, but the main point I was trying to make (and susequently support) is that people who are incapable of taking proper care of themselves (therfore relying on others for help) should not be having kids and adding them to the cycle

 

Why do you hate the Catholic poor?

[yo mama]

So everyone on the right wants to simplify the tax code until they stand to gain financially and politically. Not that all other politicians aren't the same.

I don't know that I'd paint it with *that* broad a brush. A "fair" tax-type system would benefit a lot of middle-income wage-earning conservatives who get hosed by things like the Alternative Minimum Tax. But corporate America and the uber-wealth are responsible for a lot of the Code's complexity, because the complexity benefits them. But to be honest, some of the Code's complexity is the result of well-intentioned politicians trying to shape policy (like permitting deduction of mortgage interest and property taxes to encourage home ownership). Some of it will never be capable of being "simplified," like international taxation, tax-exempt matters, and a myriad of entity-related rules. These are largely incapable of being "simplified" because they are not simple, like a $25,000 a year wage earner's 1040EZ.

 

So you can't really pin everything on "the rich." But more so, you most certainly can't pin the complexity on the hapless tax professionals charged with understanding the BS that gets handed down by Congress, Treasury, and the courts. We, of all people, want more simplicity and clarity because we get sued for malpractice when we're wrong.

[Perchoutofwater]

So you can't really pin everything on "the rich." But more so, you most certainly can't pin the complexity on the hapless tax professionals charged with understanding the BS that gets handed down by Congress, Treasury, and the courts. We, of all people, want more simplicity and clarity because we get sued for malpractice when we're wrong.

 

Don't you hate f'n lawyers. Seriously if the code was simplified a lot of tax professionals would be out of work.

[Delicious_bass]

Why do you hate the Catholic poor?

Resentment after 12 years of private Catholic education

 

ETA: On a serious note, (assuming you're basically pointing out that the Catholic church discourages birth control(in a half-joking manner)) I would offer that the Catholic church also discourages sex out of marriage. How many single mom's are there out there receiving gubment assistance?

Edited December 14, 2009 by Delicious_bass

[yo mama]

I doubt you will find many business owners that want it that way. The majority of us would prefer a lower rate with no loopholes. Yes, as long as we keep jacking up tax rates and playing favorites with the tax law then businesses are going to keep lobbying for loopholes, but to say that business wants it that way is not true, or at least not true of any business owner I know except for CPA's, tax lawyers, and estate planners.

And who lobbied for those tax loopholes? Not the ABA.

 

The republicans had both the presidency and Congress for quite sometime, and the most meaningful system wide "tax reform" they pushed was repealing the estate tax. The inaction by conservatives back then speaks louder to me than their words now.

[yo mama]

Don't you hate f'n lawyers. Seriously if the code was simplified a lot of tax professionals would be out of work.

Only the bad ones.

 

Sure, but that would impact H&R Block types more than me. I've got more business than I know what to do with, and that wouldn't change with a "fair tax" in place. If anything, upending the current system and replacing it with something completely differently would (at least temporarily) increase business as folks struggle to work through all the changes. As the government works through the kinks of "projected revenue" compared to "actual revenue collected," additional changes would be necessary, and tax professionals would have to help people figure those out. And then the lobbyists would get their hooks back in and, slowly but surely, we'd eventually be more or less back where we started.

 

I understand - and largely agree with - the basic tenants of what irks you, Perch. But absent a constitutional amendment you're kind of pissing in the wind here.

Edited December 14, 2009 by yo mama

[Perchoutofwater]

And who lobbied for those tax loopholes? Not the ABA.

 

The republicans had both the presidency and Congress for quite sometime, and the most meaningful system wide "tax reform" they pushed was repealing the estate tax. The inaction by conservatives back then speaks louder to me than their words now.

 

Did republicans ever have a filibuster proof majority? Would democrats filibuster the fair tax or a flat tax? You know as well as I do that legislation was drawn up and killed in committee because they didn't have the votes to break a filibuster. So, you stating "the inaction by conservatives back then speaks louder to me than their words now" is disingenuous.

[Perchoutofwater]

I understand - and largely agree with - the basic tenants of what irks you, Perch. But absent a constitutional amendment you're kind of pissing in the wind here.

 

Part of the Fair Tax is a constitutional amendment.

[yo mama]

Did republicans ever have a filibuster proof majority? Would democrats filibuster the fair tax or a flat tax? You know as well as I do that legislation was drawn up and killed in committee because they didn't have the votes to break a filibuster. So, you stating "the inaction by conservatives back then speaks louder to me than their words now" is disingenuous.

Do Republican politicians need a filibuster-proof majority before they're willing put legislation to a vote? Of course not. That they weren't willing to stick their necks out on tax reform when they had a majority tells me all I need to know about how important tax reform was to the Republican Congress during the Bush presidency.

Edited December 14, 2009 by yo mama

[westvirginia]

This is a great thread. I've enjoyed reading every bit of it...

 

BP, in a manner of speaking, people do "choose" to be poor. They make conscious choices to spend foolishly, and not save. Deferred gratification is not the American way any more. Now there are folks who can't help it - mental and physical problems they were born with, etc. But as I've said many times on these boards, you could take every cent in this country and divide it equally among every citizen. In a year, the same people who have it now would have it again (with a very few exceptions). It's because the rich keep doing the things that make them rich, and the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.

[westvirginia]

Do Republican politicians need a filibuster-proof majority before they're willing put legislation to a vote? Of course not. That they weren't willing to stick their necks out on tax reform when they had a majority tells me all I need to know about how important tax reform was to the Republican Congress during the Bush presidency.

 

Hammer, meet nail. They didn't give a crap about anything other than getting re-elected.

[yo mama]

Hammer, meet nail. They didn't give a crap about anything other than getting re-elected.

Which is why the only way it happens is if 3/4 of the states can muster action for constitutional amendment. Why would Congress ever limit Congress' ability to raise revenue for Congress to spend?

Edited December 14, 2009 by yo mama

[westvirginia]

Which is why the only way it happens is if 3/4 of the states can muster action for constitutional amendment. Why would Congress ever limit Congress' ability to raise revenue for Congress to spend?

 

I think it could happen, if we create a HUGH turnover and vote a bunch of third-partiers in. But other than that you're right.

[WaterMan]

Tax loop holes = business food stamps

[bpwallace49]

This is a great thread. I've enjoyed reading every bit of it...

 

BP, in a manner of speaking, people do "choose" to be poor. They make conscious choices to spend foolishly, and not save. Deferred gratification is not the American way any more. Now there are folks who can't help it - mental and physical problems they were born with, etc. But as I've said many times on these boards, you could take every cent in this country and divide it equally among every citizen. In a year, the same people who have it now would have it again (with a very few exceptions). It's because the rich keep doing the things that make them rich, and the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.

 

I seriously disagree with what you are promoting here. While there always are people that make poor choices, it is largely TAUGHT to them by their families through their childhood and (to a lesser extent) through their schools. Behavior is not ingrained in our genes, and we are all products of the environments in which we grow up. When you see a stat like 90% of black children have or will be on food stamps at some part of your life, you can actually trace back and realize that we really are not that far removed from slavery.

 

I will state that people do not "choose" the family they grow up in, or the family situations they have to deal with. If these families struggling along are never TAUGHT what the right choices are, how can their kids be expected to not repeat their errors? What is common sense to all us privileged people that can waste time on a fantasy football website every day, is NOT common sense for kids that are raised by the TVs to worship consumerism.

 

After all . . boundless consumerism without responsibility or logical choices about spending is the American way!

[bpwallace49]

Interesting...I said a lot of people are mired in poverty because of bad choices and you read it as me saying "most" people choose to be poor.

 

Anyway, you may be correct that we may be looking at/commenting on different actual levels of poverty. I guess when I think of people who likely wont eat unless food/help is given to them, I am picturing people that are in pretty dire situations. I am not picturing people sitting in front of a tv playing PS3. I am assuming if food is no guarantee for these people, video games/systems costing hundred's of dollars would be only a dream for them. I will fully admit I may be completely naive here, though...

 

I fully agree with you that poor parents who dont know any better likely will not have any wealth/knowlege/life skills to pass on to their kids. That's why I said its these people that have no business having kids when they cant take care of themselves. And while I'll buy that education is needed to help these people with some things(ie nutrition), I am having a hard time believing there are too many people in this country over the age of 14 who dont know that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. I mean, lets cut the chit here. Its almost 2010. People in this country cant really be that clueless, can they? Yet some of this stuff has been problems for these people for years?

 

Just as a reminder, my first commentary in this thread was in response to gbpfan who said(paraphrasing) he didnt think poor people should be cranking out kids. I happen to agree with this as(like you have pointed out) it is an infinite cycle of poverty when people who cant care for themselves continue to reproduce. The thread has since wandered around a bit, but the main point I was trying to make (and susequently support) is that people who are incapable of taking proper care of themselves (therfore relying on others for help) should not be having kids and adding them to the cycle

 

When you couple poor people with a religious dogma that promotes procreation (for example, Catholicsm among Hispanics) you have a no-win scenario. Add in the fact that people know darn well . . but if they are poor, do you think condoms are high on the shopping list?

 

I am pretty sure food stamps cant be used for rubbers.

 

We agree in principle on almost everything, I think we differ on what the solution to root causes of the problems.

[bpwallace49]

Did republicans ever have a filibuster proof majority? Would democrats filibuster the fair tax or a flat tax? You know as well as I do that legislation was drawn up and killed in committee because they didn't have the votes to break a filibuster. So, you stating "the inaction by conservatives back then speaks louder to me than their words now" is disingenuous.

 

Woulda coulda shoulda Perch. You will never know because a serious attempt was never taken.

 

Why? cause republicans as well as Democrats NEED those businesses to contribute to their election pot o golds every year and will never do a damn thing to kill their golden goose.

 

Plus the fact that all politicians have to protect their lobbyist jobs that await them after they cater to certain businesses self-interests while in office.

 

C'mon Perch . . take off the rose colored glasses and realize that ALL pols have vested self interests. You use up all your hate on the left and somehow stick your fingers in your ears when the same standard is applied to the right.

[Perchoutofwater]

When you see a stat like 90% of black children have or will be on food stamps at some part of your life, you can actually trace back and realize that we really are not that far removed from slavery.

 

Yep, that has everything to do with slavery Could it possibly be that many of them don't know who their daddy is? That couldn't possibly have anything to do with it could it?

Edited December 15, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[yo mama]

Yep, that has everything to do with slavery Could it possibly be that many of them don't know who their daddy is? That couldn't possibly have anything to do with it could it?

Whatever the primary cause(s) of the problem are, more deficit welfare spending isn't the solution.

[Lady.hawke]

Hammer, meet nail. They didn't give a crap about anything other than getting re-elected.

 

As does the current crop.

 

All career politicians on both sides of the aisle need to go. Period. No exceptions.