so why are buffet, gates, and bloomberg all advocating higher taxes on themselves when they would be much better off under a flat tax system, It's because they know it makes no sense
It is very strange that they would advocate it. Couldn't they just donate money to the government of their own free will if they do not feel they are paying enough? Odd that they feel they need to be self policed to pay more.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
A flat tax is not "regressive". That said, it's not "progressive" either. It's flat. Hence the name: flat or "proportional" tax.
that doesn't take into account that people who earn more feel it less when taxed compared to people who earn less
Once again, by it's very definition a flat tax is not regressive, it is proportional. Even Alan Blinder, a known Keynesian who's article you cited, wouldn't argue with me on this one. It's a definition. He may argue that a "change" to a flat tax would make the system "more" regressive (because we have a progressive system right now and by adopting a flat tax we would be moving from a progressive to a proportional system, in doing so we'd move "towards" the regressive side of the scale). But, on net, he would not argue that a flat tax would make the income tax system regressive in and of itself because he knows that's intellectually dishonest... a flat tax is by definition a proportional tax. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't like definitions if they don't fit their agenda.
The flat tax would have a negative effect on more industries then you could imagine.
There would be much less incentive to make charitable donations, so all sorts of charities would see their donations dwindle. The beneficiaries of these charities would suffer.
If the deduction for mortgage interest was taken away, there would be less demand for homes. Current homeowners, especially the ones with any other assets, would lose a huge portion of their net worth. Homebuilders and realtors would lose a huge portion of their business.
With a lowered demand for houses, everyone across the socio-economic scale would suffer.
All you righties watch too much Glenn Beck and Mike Savage. You had know idea what socialism was until it became a buzz word in 2008. What needs to be done is to bring back taxes back to what they were before GW got a hold of them. What was Bush thinking starting 2 wars and cutting taxes? No country has ever cut taxes during a war let alone 2 wars. Also, healthcare is a human right and should be offered to everybody. Obama pussied out when he extended the Bush tax cuts and he pussied out by not pushing things through when he first got into office. But a flat tax is a terrible idea because even most of the rich people are like tax me I don't give a shit. But it's the stupid Tea Baggers that think they are going to be rich one day "and by golly when I am I do not want Uncle Sam taking my money." Well you dumb ass, you’re not going to be rich so live your simple life, cheer your sports team and shoot some tin cans...... and stop voting against yourself.
BTW Malone, I am not a teacher. I'm a Director of Sales of a hotel.
Ragging on people for having stereotypes and then closing by making a stereotypical comment about the same group is so stereotypical.
The flat tax would have a negative effect on more industries then you could imagine.
There would be much less incentive to make charitable donations, so all sorts of charities would see their donations dwindle. The beneficiaries of these charities would suffer.
What if people had more money on net in their pockets? Let's assume that those in the 25% and above bracket (or those making $34,500 or more) give the most to charity - which I'm quite sure is the case. Under most flat tax plans, they would pay less in taxes and therefore have more money to give to charity. The "incentives" may change, but would donations decline? I'm pretty sure they'd actually increase. I'll speak for myself... I'd give more if I was taxed less regardless of tax deductions. I don't base charitable donations on taxes. I base them on the charity itself and my own feelings regarding giving. I don't think I'm alone.
If the deduction for mortgage interest was taken away, there would be less demand for homes. Current homeowners, especially the ones with any other assets, would lose a huge portion of their net worth. Homebuilders and realtors would lose a huge portion of their business. With a lowered demand for houses, everyone across the socio-economic scale would suffer.
Once again, I disagree. If people who could afford to purchase home, like those paying 25% or more bracket (or those making 34K or more) , had their taxes lowered... on net, I'd bet they'd have more money than what they get credited in mortgage interest deductions. So, I would disagree. I think you're really off here.
A more proportional income tax would actually help the housing market, not hurt it.
The flat tax would have a negative effect on more industries then you could imagine.
There would be much less incentive to make charitable donations, so all sorts of charities would see their donations dwindle. The beneficiaries of these charities would suffer.
If the deduction for mortgage interest was taken away, there would be less demand for homes. Current homeowners, especially the ones with any other assets, would lose a huge portion of their net worth. Homebuilders and realtors would lose a huge portion of their business.
With a lowered demand for houses, everyone across the socio-economic scale would suffer.
What percentage of homeowners do you think purchased a home just for the mortgage interest write-off?
The flat tax would have a negative effect on more industries then you could imagine.
There would be much less incentive to make charitable donations, so all sorts of charities would see their donations dwindle. The beneficiaries of these charities would suffer.
If the deduction for mortgage interest was taken away, there would be less demand for homes. Current homeowners, especially the ones with any other assets, would lose a huge portion of their net worth. Homebuilders and realtors would lose a huge portion of their business.
With a lowered demand for houses, everyone across the socio-economic scale would suffer.
What percentage of homeowners do you think purchased a home just for the mortgage interest write-off?
dunno, but as a CPA whose client base has many people coming into "new money", we always highlight the tax benefit of home ownership. On a $1,000,000 mortgage, someone in a high tax state such as CA or NY can save nearly $22,500 in taxes every year as a result of the mortgage interest deduction.
The flat tax would have a negative effect on more industries then you could imagine.
There would be much less incentive to make charitable donations, so all sorts of charities would see their donations dwindle. The beneficiaries of these charities would suffer.
If the deduction for mortgage interest was taken away, there would be less demand for homes. Current homeowners, especially the ones with any other assets, would lose a huge portion of their net worth. Homebuilders and realtors would lose a huge portion of their business.
With a lowered demand for houses, everyone across the socio-economic scale would suffer.
What percentage of homeowners do you think purchased a home just for the mortgage interest write-off?
dunno, but as a CPA whose client base has many people coming into "new money", we always highlight the tax benefit of home ownership. On a $1,000,000 mortgage, someone in a high tax state such as CA or NY can save nearly $22,500 in taxes every year as a result of the mortgage interest deduction.
Do you honestly think enough people would stop buying houses to cause the housing market to drop by a "huge portion"?
All you righties watch too much Glenn Beck and Mike Savage. You had know idea what socialism was until it became a buzz word in 2008. What needs to be done is to bring back taxes back to what they were before GW got a hold of them. What was Bush thinking starting 2 wars and cutting taxes? No country has ever cut taxes during a war let alone 2 wars. Also, healthcare is a human right and should be offered to everybody. Obama pussied out when he extended the Bush tax cuts and he pussied out by not pushing things through when he first got into office. But a flat tax is a terrible idea because even most of the rich people are like tax me I don't give a shit. But it's the stupid Tea Baggers that think they are going to be rich one day "and by golly when I am I do not want Uncle Sam taking my money." Well you dumb ass, you’re not going to be rich so live your simple life, cheer your sports team and shoot some tin cans...... and stop voting against yourself.
BTW Malone, I am not a teacher. I'm a Director of Sales of a hotel.
how much help would come from raising taxes on everyone? So what good would come from going back to clinton era tax rates? why is that the solution? why is giving more candy and soda to a diabetic the solution?
as for the end rant...that's the best you got? the whole regurgitating X commentator is a pretty silly comment all things considered
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
All you righties watch too much Glenn Beck and Mike Savage. You had know idea what socialism was until it became a buzz word in 2008. What needs to be done is to bring back taxes back to what they were before GW got a hold of them. What was Bush thinking starting 2 wars and cutting taxes? No country has ever cut taxes during a war let alone 2 wars. Also, healthcare is a human right and should be offered to everybody. Obama pussied out when he extended the Bush tax cuts and he pussied out by not pushing things through when he first got into office. But a flat tax is a terrible idea because even most of the rich people are like tax me I don't give a shit. But it's the stupid Tea Baggers that think they are going to be rich one day "and by golly when I am I do not want Uncle Sam taking my money." Well you dumb ass, you’re not going to be rich so live your simple life, cheer your sports team and shoot some tin cans...... and stop voting against yourself.
BTW Malone, I am not a teacher. I'm a Director of Sales of a hotel.
how much help would come from raising taxes on everyone? So what good would come from going back to clinton era tax rates? why is that the solution? why is giving more candy and soda to a diabetic the solution?
as for the end rant...that's the best you got? the whole regurgitating X commentator is a pretty silly comment all things considered
Never mind if you cannot take a little smart ass humor at the end. Your making it sound like the taxes would jump to 50%. It only raises them 3-4%. That little extra money would help things like education, healthcare, infrastructure, being able to rebuild after natural disasters and not end up being broke by it. Don’t give me that by raising taxes the rich will not create jobs story as well. The Corporations and their owners have seen record profits the past 5 years and haven’t been creating jobs. I work for Marriott and we have seen record profits the past 3 years and are not hiring any additional front desk, housekeepers or engineers. We are running what we call lean & mean. Like I said before for how many people do not deserve welfare because they are lazy there are as much more that do really need and have fell on hard times that do need. It’s called the common good of man.
All you righties watch too much Glenn Beck and Mike Savage. You had know idea what socialism was until it became a buzz word in 2008. What needs to be done is to bring back taxes back to what they were before GW got a hold of them. What was Bush thinking starting 2 wars and cutting taxes? No country has ever cut taxes during a war let alone 2 wars. Also, healthcare is a human right and should be offered to everybody. Obama pussied out when he extended the Bush tax cuts and he pussied out by not pushing things through when he first got into office. But a flat tax is a terrible idea because even most of the rich people are like tax me I don't give a shit. But it's the stupid Tea Baggers that think they are going to be rich one day "and by golly when I am I do not want Uncle Sam taking my money." Well you dumb ass, you’re not going to be rich so live your simple life, cheer your sports team and shoot some tin cans...... and stop voting against yourself.
BTW Malone, I am not a teacher. I'm a Director of Sales of a hotel.
how much help would come from raising taxes on everyone? So what good would come from going back to clinton era tax rates? why is that the solution? why is giving more candy and soda to a diabetic the solution?
as for the end rant...that's the best you got? the whole regurgitating X commentator is a pretty silly comment all things considered
Never mind if you cannot take a little smart ass humor at the end. Your making it sound like the taxes would jump to 50%. It only raises them 3-4%. That little extra money would help things like education, healthcare, infrastructure, being able to rebuild after natural disasters and not end up being broke by it. Don’t give me that by raising taxes the rich will not create jobs story as well. The Corporations and their owners have seen record profits the past 5 years and haven’t been creating jobs. I work for Marriott and we have seen record profits the past 3 years and are not hiring any additional front desk, housekeepers or engineers. We are running what we call lean & mean. Like I said before for how many people do not deserve welfare because they are lazy there are as much more that do really need and have fell on hard times that do need. It’s called the common good of man.
smart ass humor is all well and good, and obviously my little joke didn't land (all things considered being a national public radio show)
no I am making it sound like taxes would raise on every American in a recession. That money is like giving junk food to a diabetic on the verge of a coma...like trying to put out a fire with gasoline...Deficit spending isn't always a bad thing, but unfortunately irresponsible deficit spending is a killer and that is what we have.
Why is 900 billion in income taxes not enough? the moment you can show me a government that acts responsibly I will be the first in line to say they can handle more money for new or better programs.
Also because someone thinks differently doesn't mean they were fed their ideas by a commentator. I am a libertarian...I am not fed my ideas. Through life experience and education I have come to the conclusion that large bodies of government have long gotten in the way of human beings. A lot of the good that has been done in the world seems to be in spite of them and very rarely is it because of them. Just as I am sure that all of your life experiences have led you to believe what you believe. I get sick and tired every time I read how dumb tea partiers vote against themselves...no they don't...i cannot speak for everyone, but I have no interest in allowing a government with such massive inherent problems to take more money. Giving them more isn't in mine or anyone else's best interest. how much is enough? when will those interested in raising tax revenue finally say enough.
also for those that don't realize it, YOU CAN RAISE REVENUE FOR THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT RAISING TAXES
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Lets look at it from the other end and ask these questions instead..."why do we currently have a progressive tax system?" and "would it be good for the economy and government revenue if we moved to a flat tax?"
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Lets look at it from the other end and ask these questions instead..."why do we currently have a progressive tax system?" and "would it be good for the economy and government revenue if we moved to a flat tax?"
I know the question is rhetorical but I suppose you have a progressive tax system because the first $30,000 or so dollars most people make is used for basic survival. Things like food, shelter, transportation, medicine etc. come from that base income. If you tax those individuals, the government is only going to end up paying it back in the form of welfare, and other programs which are exceedingly costly to administrate unless you cut those programs altogether. It's like trying to squeeze money from a fossilized orange.
With the rate at which your middle class is disappearing into poverty, I'm surprised that there is such strong support for a flat tax rate. Mind you, I'm a teacher so my opinion doesn't count anyways .
Lets look at it from the other end and ask these questions instead..."why do we currently have a progressive tax system?" and "would it be good for the economy and government revenue if we moved to a flat tax?"
I know the question is rhetorical but I suppose you have a progressive tax system because the first $30,000 or so dollars most people make is used for basic survival. Things like food, shelter, transportation, medicine etc. come from that base income. If you tax those individuals, the government is only going to end up paying it back in the form of welfare, and other programs which are exceedingly costly to administrate unless you cut those programs altogether. It's like trying to squeeze money from a fossilized orange.
With the rate at which your middle class is disappearing into poverty, I'm surprised that there is such strong support for a flat tax rate. Mind you, I'm a teacher so my opinion doesn't count anyways .
One can survive off a hell of a lot less than $30,000 in the average state/city. That salary is a reasonable starting salary. Any argument stating that one would struggle to survive on $30,000 is absolutely wrong. I live in Philly and I made $30,000 out of college working as a financial analyst about 10 years ago. That was beyond do-able... I had a lot of money to spend on renting a great place in manayunk (a fun under age city), my car, insurance, a water bed (why I bought that I still don't know), a flat screen TV, a new stereo system, going out and drinking every weekend and some week days, a cell phone, a computer, fantasy football dues, and more...
I'd say one may struggle to survive on less than $10,000. Yet, if one made $5 an hour (which is below our minimum wage) and worked only 40 hours a week, they'd still make more than $10,000 a year.
From what I've seen the average welfare recipient receives anywhere from 18K to 60K. According to this link (which you can take or dismiss)... they earn $55K on average: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/On_average_ho ... ts_receive
Is this "fair"? Does this also provide any incentive to "get off" welfare? Hell no!
At one point, in graduate school, my graduate stipend was the poverty level. I was able to live off of that. Yet, someone can't live off of $30K.... I say, bull shit.
Lets look at it from the other end and ask these questions instead..."why do we currently have a progressive tax system?" and "would it be good for the economy and government revenue if we moved to a flat tax?"
I know the question is rhetorical but I suppose you have a progressive tax system because the first $30,000 or so dollars most people make is used for basic survival. Things like food, shelter, transportation, medicine etc. come from that base income. If you tax those individuals, the government is only going to end up paying it back in the form of welfare, and other programs which are exceedingly costly to administrate unless you cut those programs altogether. It's like trying to squeeze money from a fossilized orange.
With the rate at which your middle class is disappearing into poverty, I'm surprised that there is such strong support for a flat tax rate. Mind you, I'm a teacher so my opinion doesn't count anyways .
One can survive off a hell of a lot less than $30,000 in the average state/city. That salary is a reasonable starting salary. Any argument stating that one would struggle to survive on $30,000 is absolutely wrong. I live in Philly and I made $30,000 out of college working as a financial analyst about 10 years ago. That was beyond do-able... I had a lot of money to spend on renting a great place in manayunk (a fun under age city), my car, insurance, a water bed (why I bought that I still don't know), a flat screen TV, a new stereo system, going out and drinking every weekend and some week days, a cell phone, a computer, fantasy football dues, and more...
I'd say one may struggle to survive on less than $10,000. Yet, if one made $5 an hour (which is below our minimum wage) and worked only 40 hours a week, they'd still make more than $10,000 a year.
From what I've seen the average welfare recipient receives anywhere from 18K to 60K. According to this link (which you can take or dismiss)... they earn $55K on average: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/On_average_ho ... ts_receive
Is this "fair"? Does this also provide any incentive to "get off" welfare? Hell no!
At one point, in graduate school, my graduate stipend was the poverty level. I was able to live off of that. Yet, someone can't live off of $30K.... I say, bull shit.
Applying your own experience to others and making conclusions about society as a whole is a mistake. A single person that has healthcare from their employer can live off of $30,000 comfortably (depending on debts). A family that has to pay out the nose to insure a spouse/kids is going to have a harder time.
The link to wiki answers has a number that's too high. It's also not an average. It's totaling up what someone on public assistance could get if they were on each and every program. That's not an average, that would be a maximum amount.
Applying your own experience to others and making conclusions about society as a whole is a mistake. A single person that has healthcare from their employer can live off of $30,000 comfortably (depending on debts). A family that has to pay out the nose to insure a spouse/kids is going to have a harder time.
The link to wiki answers has a number that's too high. It's also not an average. It's totaling up what someone on public assistance could get if they were on each and every program. That's not an average, that would be a maximum amount.
I'm not making any more conclusions about society as a whole than you or the person I quoted are.
I'm saying I know for sure that $30,000 is way more than necessary to live on for "basic survival". I had a good job, a college education and I was paid $30,000. I'm paid way, way more than that now. But, even then, I had plenty of money. I could have supported a family easily. Would I have lived in as nice of a place? No. Would I have been able to have a waterbed, a new TV, a new computer, a new phone, etc? No. Would I have maybe had to cut a corner here or there? Yes. But, could I have had enough for "basic survival"? Absolutely. I would have had too much for basic survival even with kids.
The issue, in my opinion, is the term used in the original post that you skipped... the term "basic survival". $30,000 is a ridiculous amount for "basic survival". Like I said, $10,000 seems more reasonable for "basic survival".
Survival means only the barest necessities.... no frills whatsoever. Someone who's "just getting by" or "just surviving" doesn't need a cell phone, a TV, a radio, or any other amenity. They need basics... like a shelter, water and the ability to get food. You can do that with $10,000. It would not be pleasant at all, but it could be done.
The reason I say this is to not say that we want people to make $30,000 or $10,000 a year. Nope. We want people to make "something". Handouts don't work. Like myself, people need to work for what they get. Anyone who says $30,000 is not enough is spoiled rotten. I lived on much less. I know they can. The benefit of doing such is not easily seen. The benefit to society is something called 'work ethic'. People learn to work hard, and not be lazy in thinking they'll be better off with handouts. Instead, they will then want to work harder and get promoted. Output within society will increase when this occurs. Our economy increases as productivity increases. More and better jobs will follow. Salary's will rise, and before you know it... that guy who took that low salary (rather than getting a welfare check), is getting a raise, before you know it he's living above the means that welfare would have ever given him.... and yet, he's not finished... a new guy gets down on his luck, and is forced to take a low salary.... the cycle begins again.
Welfare ends this cycle. It breeds dependence and sloth. I'd argue that I care a hell of a lot more about a person than anyone who's pro-welfare. To me being pro-welfare, is the equivalent of not disciplining your child. Your children shouldn't be your best friends.... sometimes, for their own good, you need to discipline them in some way. They need to learn in order to become better people themselves.
The same is true here. Our society needs to teach people out of it... not give them reward them for it. Incentives there are ass-backwards.
Applying your own experience to others and making conclusions about society as a whole is a mistake. A single person that has healthcare from their employer can live off of $30,000 comfortably (depending on debts). A family that has to pay out the nose to insure a spouse/kids is going to have a harder time.
The link to wiki answers has a number that's too high. It's also not an average. It's totaling up what someone on public assistance could get if they were on each and every program. That's not an average, that would be a maximum amount.
I'm not making any more conclusions about society as a whole than you or the person I quoted are.
I'm saying I know for sure that $30,000 is way more than necessary to live on for "basic survival". I had a good job, a college education and I was paid $30,000. I'm paid way, way more than that now. But, even then, I had plenty of money. I could have supported a family easily. Would I have lived in as nice of a place? No. Would I have been able to have a waterbed, a new TV, a new computer, a new phone, etc? No. Would I have maybe had to cut a corner here or there? Yes. But, could I have had enough for "basic survival"? Absolutely. I would have had too much for basic survival even with kids.
The issue, in my opinion, is the term used in the original post that you skipped... the term "basic survival". $30,000 is a ridiculous amount for "basic survival". Like I said, $10,000 seems more reasonable for "basic survival".
Survival means only the barest necessities.... no frills whatsoever. Someone who's "just getting by" or "just surviving" doesn't need a cell phone, a TV, a radio, or any other amenity. They need basics... like a shelter, water and the ability to get food. You can do that with $10,000. It would not be pleasant at all, but it could be done.
The reason I say this is to not say that we want people to make $30,000 or $10,000 a year. Nope. We want people to make "something". Handouts don't work. Like myself, people need to work for what they get. Anyone who says $30,000 is not enough is spoiled rotten. I lived on much less. I know they can. The benefit of doing such is not easily seen. The benefit to society is something called 'work ethic'. People learn to work hard, and not be lazy in thinking they'll be better off with handouts. Instead, they will then want to work harder and get promoted. Output within society will increase when this occurs. Our economy increases as productivity increases. More and better jobs will follow. Salary's will rise, and before you know it... that guy who took that low salary (rather than getting a welfare check), is getting a raise, before you know it he's living above the means that welfare would have ever given him.... and yet, he's not finished... a new guy gets down on his luck, and is forced to take a low salary.... the cycle begins again.
Welfare ends this cycle. It breeds dependence and sloth. I'd argue that I care a hell of a lot more about a person than anyone who's pro-welfare. To me being pro-welfare, is the equivalent of not disciplining your child. Your children shouldn't be your best friends.... sometimes, for their own good, you need to discipline them in some way. They need to learn in order to become better people themselves.
The same is true here. Our society needs to teach people out of it... not give them reward them for it. Incentives there are ass-backwards.
The condescending tone to your response takes some work to get around. And again your sentences "I've lived on much less. I know they can." is attempting to generalize your experience and draw conclusions from it. I'm not sure why you think you're not making more conclusions than I am. My conclusion is that some live comfortably on 30k, and for others, it's harder. It seems like your projecting your 'single college educated guy' experience on others and saying if it worked for me, then it can work for you. $30k gets used up pretty quick if someone is a single parent, pays $400/mo for healthcare and $500/mo for childcare.
You also seem to adhere to conservative themes and myths about welfare and the 'if you work hard you'll get ahead' notions. What about people who bust their hump and don't get promoted, or even just get laid off. There aren't even jobs for everyone when the economy is in good shape. What's the typical consensus ideal unemployment rate? Usually around 5%.
You response also reveals the common conservative belief regarding welfare; that there should be some form of punishment involved (i.e. the analogy of the government in the role of parent). You should also show evidence of how welfare breeds dependence and sloth other than I think it and therefore it's true.
The condescending tone to your response takes some work to get around. And again your sentences "I've lived on much less. I know they can." is attempting to generalize your experience and draw conclusions from it. I'm not sure why you think you're not making more conclusions than I am. My conclusion is that some live comfortably on 30k, and for others, it's harder. It seems like your projecting your 'single college educated guy' experience on others and saying if it worked for me, then it can work for you. $30k gets used up pretty quick if someone is a single parent, pays $400/mo for healthcare and $500/mo for childcare..
I agree that for some it's harder to live comfortably on $30K. I never said that it wouldn't be that way. But, where we disagree is that it's possible or not. I am very aware that everyone has their own circumstances. Regardless, I think it's possible for pretty much everyone to get by easily on $30K with "basic necessities". You don't. You want to make this into an endless debate. I don't. I don't agree with you and I'm not "projecting" anything other than my opinion on the subject.
You also seem to adhere to conservative themes and myths about welfare and the 'if you work hard you'll get ahead' notions. What about people who bust their hump and don't get promoted, or even just get laid off. There aren't even jobs for everyone when the economy is in good shape. What's the typical consensus ideal unemployment rate? Usually around 5%.
I'm not adhering to any myths, bro. I'm adhering to facts. If you work hard you will in fact be more likely to get ahead. So, anyone who says "if you work hard you'll get ahead" is right in my mind. Anyone who disagrees with that is saying that if you slack off you'll get ahead. Do you think that MJ would have been a good bball player had he not practiced? Do you think Obama would have been a good public speaker had he not learned and worked on it? Do you think Eddie Vedder would have been successful had he not worked hard to get where he is? Seriously? You're arguing that it's a conservative theme and A MYTH that working hard gets people ahead? ha ha... It not conservative and it's not a myth... it's a common known fact. If you study hard, you're more likely to pass. If you sit on your ass at work and don't do anything, you're more likely to get fired... if you work hard at work, you're more likely to get promoted.
Let's toss out a scenario. Who's more "likely" to get ahead: a guy who takes a welfare check each month, or a guy who works hard at a low-paying job? I'd say the latter... you on the other, I believe, are saying the former. Why, I have no idea... ask yourself. It's literally probably one of the dumbest arguments I've read on this portion of the board, where there are a ton of psuedo-intellectuals tossing out dumb ideas. So, please take pride in that.
For people who bust their hump and don't get promoted, perhaps they aren't in the right field. So, perhaps, in the grand scheme of things they aren't busting their hump hard enough outside of work, looking for another opportunity. If they aren't happy in their job and know they can't get promoted, they should continue to work hard at the job they have and figure out another method (a new job, increased education, etc) to find a smart way to another job that would make them happier. Government doesn't do this, they do.
When the economy is in good shape and the unemployment is near it's natural rate (about 4%), there pretty much are jobs for everyone. Look up the term - frictional unemployment, for example. Certain forms of unemployment will always exist because people change careers, etc.
You response also reveals the common conservative belief regarding welfare; that there should be some form of punishment involved (i.e. the analogy of the government in the role of parent). You should also show evidence of how welfare breeds dependence and sloth other than I think it and therefore it's true.
Dude, you crack me up. I don't need to "show you" anything. You know very well that I'm not alone in the thought process that welfare breeds dependence and sloth. In fact, I'd bet that the majority of the country would agree with me if presented the question in that manner. If you want to disprove what I said, go search around and find some data. Have fun with it. Maybe I'll even read it.
There is no point in educating some people. I imagine you probably feel the same.
I'm not gonna waste 30 minutes of my life typing out all of the socio-economic reasons I support a flat tax, so that Go Beavers on the Pearl Jam forum might see things differently.
If "payng their fair share" means that "rich people" pay 100% in taxes, so that you and the like-minded can live in a tent on public property and shit on park benches, then I'm happy for you. At least you know what you want in life.
A lesser shit, I could not give...
You seem like a real swell guy who has a way of winning people over and projecting a good image of yourself.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
There is no point in educating some people. I imagine you probably feel the same.
I'm not gonna waste 30 minutes of my life typing out all of the socio-economic reasons I support a flat tax, so that Go Beavers on the Pearl Jam forum might see things differently.
If "payng their fair share" means that "rich people" pay 100% in taxes, so that you and the like-minded can live in a tent on public property and shit on park benches, then I'm happy for you. At least you know what you want in life.
A lesser shit, I could not give...
You seem like a real swell guy who has a way of winning people over and projecting a good image of yourself.
The condescending tone to your response takes some work to get around. And again your sentences "I've lived on much less. I know they can." is attempting to generalize your experience and draw conclusions from it. I'm not sure why you think you're not making more conclusions than I am. My conclusion is that some live comfortably on 30k, and for others, it's harder. It seems like your projecting your 'single college educated guy' experience on others and saying if it worked for me, then it can work for you. $30k gets used up pretty quick if someone is a single parent, pays $400/mo for healthcare and $500/mo for childcare..
I agree that for some it's harder to live comfortably on $30K. I never said that it wouldn't be that way. But, where we disagree is that it's possible or not. I am very aware that everyone has their own circumstances. Regardless, I think it's possible for pretty much everyone to get by easily on $30K with "basic necessities". You don't. You want to make this into an endless debate. I don't. I don't agree with you and I'm not "projecting" anything other than my opinion on the subject.
You also seem to adhere to conservative themes and myths about welfare and the 'if you work hard you'll get ahead' notions. What about people who bust their hump and don't get promoted, or even just get laid off. There aren't even jobs for everyone when the economy is in good shape. What's the typical consensus ideal unemployment rate? Usually around 5%.
I'm not adhering to any myths, bro. I'm adhering to facts. If you work hard you will in fact be more likely to get ahead. So, anyone who says "if you work hard you'll get ahead" is right in my mind. Anyone who disagrees with that is saying that if you slack off you'll get ahead. Do you think that MJ would have been a good bball player had he not practiced? Do you think Obama would have been a good public speaker had he not learned and worked on it? Do you think Eddie Vedder would have been successful had he not worked hard to get where he is? Seriously? You're arguing that it's a conservative theme and A MYTH that working hard gets people ahead? ha ha... It not conservative and it's not a myth... it's a common known fact. If you study hard, you're more likely to pass. If you sit on your ass at work and don't do anything, you're more likely to get fired... if you work hard at work, you're more likely to get promoted.
Let's toss out a scenario. Who's more "likely" to get ahead: a guy who takes a welfare check each month, or a guy who works hard at a low-paying job? I'd say the latter... you on the other, I believe, are saying the former. Why, I have no idea... ask yourself. It's literally probably one of the dumbest arguments I've read on this portion of the board, where there are a ton of psuedo-intellectuals tossing out dumb ideas. So, please take pride in that.
For people who bust their hump and don't get promoted, perhaps they aren't in the right field. So, perhaps, in the grand scheme of things they aren't busting their hump hard enough outside of work, looking for another opportunity. If they aren't happy in their job and know they can't get promoted, they should continue to work hard at the job they have and figure out another method (a new job, increased education, etc) to find a smart way to another job that would make them happier. Government doesn't do this, they do.
When the economy is in good shape and the unemployment is near it's natural rate (about 4%), there pretty much are jobs for everyone. Look up the term - frictional unemployment, for example. Certain forms of unemployment will always exist because people change careers, etc.
You response also reveals the common conservative belief regarding welfare; that there should be some form of punishment involved (i.e. the analogy of the government in the role of parent). You should also show evidence of how welfare breeds dependence and sloth other than I think it and therefore it's true.
Dude, you crack me up. I don't need to "show you" anything. You know very well that I'm not alone in the thought process that welfare breeds dependence and sloth. In fact, I'd bet that the majority of the country would agree with me if presented the question in that manner. If you want to disprove what I said, go search around and find some data. Have fun with it. Maybe I'll even read it.
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying in several areas. I never said the guy on welfare was more likely to get ahead. People can work hard and get ahead, I'm just not as sold on it being the case for everyone like you might be. People work hard and don't get ahead for a wide range of reasons depending on a lot of variables. When someone isn't getting ahead, my first and only response isn't just to blame the individual and move on. A lot of conservatives think that we're all given the same opportunities at birth, I just don't think that's the case. It's not a "fact" that if you work hard you get ahead. Some get ahead by doing the minimum. Some get ahead by hard work, combined with several other factors, some of which aren't even in their control.
It's a flawed argument to pick successful people and then go in reverse to see how they worked hard to get there. Pick a group of unsuccessful people, and then go in reverse and see how hard they worked, but for whatever reasons, didn't end up successful.
Just because other people agree with you that public assistance breeds dependency and sloth doesn't mean you're right. People believe a lot of myths about human psychology.
One can survive off a hell of a lot less than $30,000 in the average state/city. That salary is a reasonable starting salary. Any argument stating that one would struggle to survive on $30,000 is absolutely wrong. I live in Philly and I made $30,000 out of college working as a financial analyst about 10 years ago. That was beyond do-able... I had a lot of money to spend on renting a great place in manayunk (a fun under age city), my car, insurance, a water bed (why I bought that I still don't know), a flat screen TV, a new stereo system, going out and drinking every weekend and some week days, a cell phone, a computer, fantasy football dues, and more...
I'd say one may struggle to survive on less than $10,000. Yet, if one made $5 an hour (which is below our minimum wage) and worked only 40 hours a week, they'd still make more than $10,000 a year.
From what I've seen the average welfare recipient receives anywhere from 18K to 60K. According to this link (which you can take or dismiss)... they earn $55K on average: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/On_average_ho ... ts_receive
Is this "fair"? Does this also provide any incentive to "get off" welfare? Hell no!
At one point, in graduate school, my graduate stipend was the poverty level. I was able to live off of that. Yet, someone can't live off of $30K.... I say, bull shit.
I think we already established in another thread that you think I'm a lazy, ignorant, sycophant living on the public purse and utterly clueless to the complexities of the real world so I very much doubt we're going to see eye-to-eye on any socioeconomic issues anytime soon, but in what world can you live on anything close to $10,000 per year? Now perhaps it's different in America, but where I live it's virtually impossible to find a one-bedroom apartment for under $800 a month. How on earth could anybody live on $10,000 per year if they spend at least $9,600 of that on rent? Factor in food costs, medical and dental costs (which you probably don't have coverage for if your living in poverty), transportation, basic phone bills, the cost of any dependents (children), possibly electricity and water along with other intangible costs and how do you figure somebody can make it on $10,000.
I'm not going to even bother with responding to a rant from WikiAnswers. Quoting an anecdotal generalization doesn't really bring anything new to a forum where everybody makes anecdotal generalizations about each and every issue. As for your budgeting skills; could you really have managed to live so freely if you didn't expect your finances to improve down the road? Not everybody has your good fortune.
I think we already established in another thread that you think I'm a lazy, ignorant, sycophant living on the public purse and utterly clueless to the complexities of the real world so I very much doubt we're going to see eye-to-eye on any socioeconomic issues anytime soon,
I'd really like to see where I said any of negatives about you that you listed above, you liar.
Factor in food costs, medical and dental costs (which you probably don't have coverage for if your living in poverty), transportation, basic phone bills, the cost of any dependents (children), possibly electricity and water along with other intangible costs and how do you figure somebody can make it on $10,000.
No, I won't factor in dental costs. If you read what I wrote, I was talking about "basic necessities".... dental costs are not a necessity. I'd argue even medical costs (if they aren't life-saving) isn't a necessity. Regardless, let's move on to more of non-necessities. Phone bill? Not necessity. Children, electricity and water could be (if the person has kids). Electricity may be.
I'm not going to even bother with responding to a rant from WikiAnswers. Quoting an anecdotal generalization doesn't really bring anything new to a forum where everybody makes anecdotal generalizations about each and every issue. As for your budgeting skills; could you really have managed to live so freely if you didn't expect your finances to improve down the road? Not everybody has your good fortune.
Yes, I could have lived so freely because I worked hard for my finances to improve down the road. At times, my finances worsened, and I'm sure they may again. During those times, I made and will make adjustments. In my opinion, everyone has the good fortune to make adjustments in order to maximize their finances and well-being. No one is incapable of such.
Comments
Um... if it's truly flat, they should feel it the same (although peoples' feelings vary widely).
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It is very strange that they would advocate it. Couldn't they just donate money to the government of their own free will if they do not feel they are paying enough? Odd that they feel they need to be self policed to pay more.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Half right.
Cutting defense is a great idea.
Cutting subsidies for corporations - which means raising taxes on them - just gives the government more money to line their own pockets and interests.
We need solutions that reduce the amount of money that the government can mismanage.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That is totally your opinion and not based in fact. 25% of $30,000 is $7500.
25% of $2Million is $500,000.
How does someone paying $500,000 in taxes "not even notice"?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
cause $1.5m is more than enough for someone to live on more than comfortably.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
uhhh ... one could say that subsidies is one of those foolish expenditure items ...
Once again, by it's very definition a flat tax is not regressive, it is proportional. Even Alan Blinder, a known Keynesian who's article you cited, wouldn't argue with me on this one. It's a definition. He may argue that a "change" to a flat tax would make the system "more" regressive (because we have a progressive system right now and by adopting a flat tax we would be moving from a progressive to a proportional system, in doing so we'd move "towards" the regressive side of the scale). But, on net, he would not argue that a flat tax would make the income tax system regressive in and of itself because he knows that's intellectually dishonest... a flat tax is by definition a proportional tax. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't like definitions if they don't fit their agenda.
End of story.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
There would be much less incentive to make charitable donations, so all sorts of charities would see their donations dwindle. The beneficiaries of these charities would suffer.
If the deduction for mortgage interest was taken away, there would be less demand for homes. Current homeowners, especially the ones with any other assets, would lose a huge portion of their net worth. Homebuilders and realtors would lose a huge portion of their business.
With a lowered demand for houses, everyone across the socio-economic scale would suffer.
Aren't those called elections?
What if people had more money on net in their pockets? Let's assume that those in the 25% and above bracket (or those making $34,500 or more) give the most to charity - which I'm quite sure is the case. Under most flat tax plans, they would pay less in taxes and therefore have more money to give to charity. The "incentives" may change, but would donations decline? I'm pretty sure they'd actually increase. I'll speak for myself... I'd give more if I was taxed less regardless of tax deductions. I don't base charitable donations on taxes. I base them on the charity itself and my own feelings regarding giving. I don't think I'm alone.
Once again, I disagree. If people who could afford to purchase home, like those paying 25% or more bracket (or those making 34K or more) , had their taxes lowered... on net, I'd bet they'd have more money than what they get credited in mortgage interest deductions. So, I would disagree. I think you're really off here.
A more proportional income tax would actually help the housing market, not hurt it.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
What percentage of homeowners do you think purchased a home just for the mortgage interest write-off?
dunno, but as a CPA whose client base has many people coming into "new money", we always highlight the tax benefit of home ownership. On a $1,000,000 mortgage, someone in a high tax state such as CA or NY can save nearly $22,500 in taxes every year as a result of the mortgage interest deduction.
Do you honestly think enough people would stop buying houses to cause the housing market to drop by a "huge portion"?
how much help would come from raising taxes on everyone? So what good would come from going back to clinton era tax rates? why is that the solution? why is giving more candy and soda to a diabetic the solution?
as for the end rant...that's the best you got? the whole regurgitating X commentator is a pretty silly comment all things considered
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Never mind if you cannot take a little smart ass humor at the end. Your making it sound like the taxes would jump to 50%. It only raises them 3-4%. That little extra money would help things like education, healthcare, infrastructure, being able to rebuild after natural disasters and not end up being broke by it. Don’t give me that by raising taxes the rich will not create jobs story as well. The Corporations and their owners have seen record profits the past 5 years and haven’t been creating jobs. I work for Marriott and we have seen record profits the past 3 years and are not hiring any additional front desk, housekeepers or engineers. We are running what we call lean & mean. Like I said before for how many people do not deserve welfare because they are lazy there are as much more that do really need and have fell on hard times that do need. It’s called the common good of man.
smart ass humor is all well and good, and obviously my little joke didn't land (all things considered being a national public radio show)
no I am making it sound like taxes would raise on every American in a recession. That money is like giving junk food to a diabetic on the verge of a coma...like trying to put out a fire with gasoline...Deficit spending isn't always a bad thing, but unfortunately irresponsible deficit spending is a killer and that is what we have.
Why is 900 billion in income taxes not enough? the moment you can show me a government that acts responsibly I will be the first in line to say they can handle more money for new or better programs.
Also because someone thinks differently doesn't mean they were fed their ideas by a commentator. I am a libertarian...I am not fed my ideas. Through life experience and education I have come to the conclusion that large bodies of government have long gotten in the way of human beings. A lot of the good that has been done in the world seems to be in spite of them and very rarely is it because of them. Just as I am sure that all of your life experiences have led you to believe what you believe. I get sick and tired every time I read how dumb tea partiers vote against themselves...no they don't...i cannot speak for everyone, but I have no interest in allowing a government with such massive inherent problems to take more money. Giving them more isn't in mine or anyone else's best interest. how much is enough? when will those interested in raising tax revenue finally say enough.
also for those that don't realize it, YOU CAN RAISE REVENUE FOR THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT RAISING TAXES
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Lets look at it from the other end and ask these questions instead..."why do we currently have a progressive tax system?" and "would it be good for the economy and government revenue if we moved to a flat tax?"
"With our thoughts we make the world"
I know the question is rhetorical but I suppose you have a progressive tax system because the first $30,000 or so dollars most people make is used for basic survival. Things like food, shelter, transportation, medicine etc. come from that base income. If you tax those individuals, the government is only going to end up paying it back in the form of welfare, and other programs which are exceedingly costly to administrate unless you cut those programs altogether. It's like trying to squeeze money from a fossilized orange.
With the rate at which your middle class is disappearing into poverty, I'm surprised that there is such strong support for a flat tax rate. Mind you, I'm a teacher so my opinion doesn't count anyways
One can survive off a hell of a lot less than $30,000 in the average state/city. That salary is a reasonable starting salary. Any argument stating that one would struggle to survive on $30,000 is absolutely wrong. I live in Philly and I made $30,000 out of college working as a financial analyst about 10 years ago. That was beyond do-able... I had a lot of money to spend on renting a great place in manayunk (a fun under age city), my car, insurance, a water bed (why I bought that I still don't know), a flat screen TV, a new stereo system, going out and drinking every weekend and some week days, a cell phone, a computer, fantasy football dues, and more...
I'd say one may struggle to survive on less than $10,000. Yet, if one made $5 an hour (which is below our minimum wage) and worked only 40 hours a week, they'd still make more than $10,000 a year.
From what I've seen the average welfare recipient receives anywhere from 18K to 60K. According to this link (which you can take or dismiss)... they earn $55K on average:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/On_average_ho ... ts_receive
Is this "fair"? Does this also provide any incentive to "get off" welfare? Hell no!
At one point, in graduate school, my graduate stipend was the poverty level. I was able to live off of that. Yet, someone can't live off of $30K.... I say, bull shit.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Applying your own experience to others and making conclusions about society as a whole is a mistake. A single person that has healthcare from their employer can live off of $30,000 comfortably (depending on debts). A family that has to pay out the nose to insure a spouse/kids is going to have a harder time.
The link to wiki answers has a number that's too high. It's also not an average. It's totaling up what someone on public assistance could get if they were on each and every program. That's not an average, that would be a maximum amount.
I'm not making any more conclusions about society as a whole than you or the person I quoted are.
I'm saying I know for sure that $30,000 is way more than necessary to live on for "basic survival". I had a good job, a college education and I was paid $30,000. I'm paid way, way more than that now. But, even then, I had plenty of money. I could have supported a family easily. Would I have lived in as nice of a place? No. Would I have been able to have a waterbed, a new TV, a new computer, a new phone, etc? No. Would I have maybe had to cut a corner here or there? Yes. But, could I have had enough for "basic survival"? Absolutely. I would have had too much for basic survival even with kids.
The issue, in my opinion, is the term used in the original post that you skipped... the term "basic survival". $30,000 is a ridiculous amount for "basic survival". Like I said, $10,000 seems more reasonable for "basic survival".
Survival means only the barest necessities.... no frills whatsoever. Someone who's "just getting by" or "just surviving" doesn't need a cell phone, a TV, a radio, or any other amenity. They need basics... like a shelter, water and the ability to get food. You can do that with $10,000. It would not be pleasant at all, but it could be done.
The reason I say this is to not say that we want people to make $30,000 or $10,000 a year. Nope. We want people to make "something". Handouts don't work. Like myself, people need to work for what they get. Anyone who says $30,000 is not enough is spoiled rotten. I lived on much less. I know they can. The benefit of doing such is not easily seen. The benefit to society is something called 'work ethic'. People learn to work hard, and not be lazy in thinking they'll be better off with handouts. Instead, they will then want to work harder and get promoted. Output within society will increase when this occurs. Our economy increases as productivity increases. More and better jobs will follow. Salary's will rise, and before you know it... that guy who took that low salary (rather than getting a welfare check), is getting a raise, before you know it he's living above the means that welfare would have ever given him.... and yet, he's not finished... a new guy gets down on his luck, and is forced to take a low salary.... the cycle begins again.
Welfare ends this cycle. It breeds dependence and sloth. I'd argue that I care a hell of a lot more about a person than anyone who's pro-welfare. To me being pro-welfare, is the equivalent of not disciplining your child. Your children shouldn't be your best friends.... sometimes, for their own good, you need to discipline them in some way. They need to learn in order to become better people themselves.
The same is true here. Our society needs to teach people out of it... not give them reward them for it. Incentives there are ass-backwards.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
The condescending tone to your response takes some work to get around. And again your sentences "I've lived on much less. I know they can." is attempting to generalize your experience and draw conclusions from it. I'm not sure why you think you're not making more conclusions than I am. My conclusion is that some live comfortably on 30k, and for others, it's harder. It seems like your projecting your 'single college educated guy' experience on others and saying if it worked for me, then it can work for you. $30k gets used up pretty quick if someone is a single parent, pays $400/mo for healthcare and $500/mo for childcare.
You also seem to adhere to conservative themes and myths about welfare and the 'if you work hard you'll get ahead' notions. What about people who bust their hump and don't get promoted, or even just get laid off. There aren't even jobs for everyone when the economy is in good shape. What's the typical consensus ideal unemployment rate? Usually around 5%.
You response also reveals the common conservative belief regarding welfare; that there should be some form of punishment involved (i.e. the analogy of the government in the role of parent). You should also show evidence of how welfare breeds dependence and sloth other than I think it and therefore it's true.
I agree that for some it's harder to live comfortably on $30K. I never said that it wouldn't be that way. But, where we disagree is that it's possible or not. I am very aware that everyone has their own circumstances. Regardless, I think it's possible for pretty much everyone to get by easily on $30K with "basic necessities". You don't. You want to make this into an endless debate. I don't. I don't agree with you and I'm not "projecting" anything other than my opinion on the subject.
I'm not adhering to any myths, bro. I'm adhering to facts. If you work hard you will in fact be more likely to get ahead. So, anyone who says "if you work hard you'll get ahead" is right in my mind. Anyone who disagrees with that is saying that if you slack off you'll get ahead. Do you think that MJ would have been a good bball player had he not practiced? Do you think Obama would have been a good public speaker had he not learned and worked on it? Do you think Eddie Vedder would have been successful had he not worked hard to get where he is? Seriously? You're arguing that it's a conservative theme and A MYTH that working hard gets people ahead? ha ha... It not conservative and it's not a myth... it's a common known fact. If you study hard, you're more likely to pass. If you sit on your ass at work and don't do anything, you're more likely to get fired... if you work hard at work, you're more likely to get promoted.
Let's toss out a scenario. Who's more "likely" to get ahead: a guy who takes a welfare check each month, or a guy who works hard at a low-paying job? I'd say the latter... you on the other, I believe, are saying the former. Why, I have no idea... ask yourself. It's literally probably one of the dumbest arguments I've read on this portion of the board, where there are a ton of psuedo-intellectuals tossing out dumb ideas. So, please take pride in that.
For people who bust their hump and don't get promoted, perhaps they aren't in the right field. So, perhaps, in the grand scheme of things they aren't busting their hump hard enough outside of work, looking for another opportunity. If they aren't happy in their job and know they can't get promoted, they should continue to work hard at the job they have and figure out another method (a new job, increased education, etc) to find a smart way to another job that would make them happier. Government doesn't do this, they do.
When the economy is in good shape and the unemployment is near it's natural rate (about 4%), there pretty much are jobs for everyone. Look up the term - frictional unemployment, for example. Certain forms of unemployment will always exist because people change careers, etc.
Dude, you crack me up. I don't need to "show you" anything. You know very well that I'm not alone in the thought process that welfare breeds dependence and sloth. In fact, I'd bet that the majority of the country would agree with me if presented the question in that manner. If you want to disprove what I said, go search around and find some data. Have fun with it. Maybe I'll even read it.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
You seem like a real swell guy who has a way of winning people over and projecting a good image of yourself.
nowadays hits you when you're young
And you sound like Dr. Phil.
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying in several areas. I never said the guy on welfare was more likely to get ahead. People can work hard and get ahead, I'm just not as sold on it being the case for everyone like you might be. People work hard and don't get ahead for a wide range of reasons depending on a lot of variables. When someone isn't getting ahead, my first and only response isn't just to blame the individual and move on. A lot of conservatives think that we're all given the same opportunities at birth, I just don't think that's the case. It's not a "fact" that if you work hard you get ahead. Some get ahead by doing the minimum. Some get ahead by hard work, combined with several other factors, some of which aren't even in their control.
It's a flawed argument to pick successful people and then go in reverse to see how they worked hard to get there. Pick a group of unsuccessful people, and then go in reverse and see how hard they worked, but for whatever reasons, didn't end up successful.
Just because other people agree with you that public assistance breeds dependency and sloth doesn't mean you're right. People believe a lot of myths about human psychology.
I think we already established in another thread that you think I'm a lazy, ignorant, sycophant living on the public purse and utterly clueless to the complexities of the real world so I very much doubt we're going to see eye-to-eye on any socioeconomic issues anytime soon, but in what world can you live on anything close to $10,000 per year? Now perhaps it's different in America, but where I live it's virtually impossible to find a one-bedroom apartment for under $800 a month. How on earth could anybody live on $10,000 per year if they spend at least $9,600 of that on rent? Factor in food costs, medical and dental costs (which you probably don't have coverage for if your living in poverty), transportation, basic phone bills, the cost of any dependents (children), possibly electricity and water along with other intangible costs and how do you figure somebody can make it on $10,000.
I'm not going to even bother with responding to a rant from WikiAnswers. Quoting an anecdotal generalization doesn't really bring anything new to a forum where everybody makes anecdotal generalizations about each and every issue. As for your budgeting skills; could you really have managed to live so freely if you didn't expect your finances to improve down the road? Not everybody has your good fortune.
I'd really like to see where I said any of negatives about you that you listed above, you liar.
This one
Then move. We're talking about America.
They don't have to pay that.
No, I won't factor in dental costs. If you read what I wrote, I was talking about "basic necessities".... dental costs are not a necessity. I'd argue even medical costs (if they aren't life-saving) isn't a necessity. Regardless, let's move on to more of non-necessities. Phone bill? Not necessity. Children, electricity and water could be (if the person has kids). Electricity may be.
Yes, I could have lived so freely because I worked hard for my finances to improve down the road. At times, my finances worsened, and I'm sure they may again. During those times, I made and will make adjustments. In my opinion, everyone has the good fortune to make adjustments in order to maximize their finances and well-being. No one is incapable of such.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="