Thoughts on democrats and republicans.

Carthoris · Jan 22, 2011

You obviously don't know what subsidize means.

:to furnish with a subsidy: as a : to purchase the assistance of by payment of a subsidy b : to aid or promote (as a private enterprise) with public money <subsidize soybean farmers> <subsidize public transportation>

Subsidize means giving something to someone. They are only being allowed to keep what is their. Nobody is giving a payment to the rich. EIC is a subsidy. You know, money that is being payed to someone who didn't deserve it. If the rich don't get a exemption on money over a certain amount, they also should not get a limit on what they collect. It isn't about being able to afford it or not, it is about fair and right.

UncleBuck · Jan 22, 2011

Carthoris said:
EIC is a subsidy. You know, money that is being payed to someone who didn't deserve it.

bullshit. imagine living as a single parent on just over $40,000 a year with three kids to take care of and support. that is the reality that many face. many have it worse, as $40,000 a year equates to only about $20 per hour, a decent wage for the 75% of people in the country that don't have the luxury of a college education (and some who do).

the government provides incentive in form of a subsidy for that person to work, at a rate of about $5,000 to the $40,000 earned, or 12.5%. Would you rather they leach $40,000 in welfare and food stamps and free health care, or would you rather play the odds and incentivize them to work?

now keep in mind, this helps children the most. if you have no kids, you get WAY less, to the tune of 5% incentive to work. if we raise that it will provide more incentive to work, rather than leech, as well as provide opportunities to break the cycle of poverty.

hell, i invested only a little over $1,500 to start a little venture that pays my bills nowadays. and since i earned over 28k a year single, i would not have qualified for eic. so this argument is purely motivated by my desire not to see this credit revoked.

maniacs like you who think that eliminating eic at the expense of lower middle class children across the country are the most dangerous thing to america, even more dangerous than pundits who advocate shooting people in the head or strangling someone to death (beck) and those that put crosshairs over elected officials and tell people to reload (palin). what you propose would have no long term effect on our debt and deficits but would mean a lot of strife for children whose parents work hard for a living.

A1.

Click to expand...

The earned income credit (EITC) is a tax credit for certain people who work and have low wages. A tax credit usually means more money in your pocket. It reduces the amount of tax you owe. The EITC may also give you a refund. Return to Top
Q2. Who can claim the credit?

A2. To claim the EITC on your tax return, you must meet all of the following rules:

Must have a valid Social Security Number

You must have earned income from employment or from self-employment.

Your filing status cannot be married, filing separately.

You must be a U.S. citizen or resident alien all year, or a nonresident alien married to a U.S. citizen or resident alien and filing a joint return.

You cannot be a qualifying child of another person.

If you do not have a qualifying child, you must:

be age 25 but under 65 at the end of the year,

live in the United States for more than half the year, and

not qualify as a dependent of another person

Cannot file Form 2555 or 2555-EZ (related to foreign earn income)

You must meet these EITC Income Limits, Maximum Credit Amounts and Tax Law Updates

Earned Income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than:

$43,352 ($48,362 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children

$40,363 ($45,373 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children

$35,535 ($40,545 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child

$13,460 ($18,470 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children

Tax Year 2010 maximum credit:

$5,666 with three or more qualifying children

$5,036 with two qualifying children

$3,050 with one qualifying child

$457 with no qualifying children

Carthoris · Jan 23, 2011

What you are saying is that having a child you cannot take care of means you deserve free money. Why not say all crackheads should get a $5k refund every year? You seem to be forgetting they get 5-7500 when they make 20k too. That is more like 25-35%. Yet single people who make the same amount are paying that much in. Rewards for being irresponsible? Then, on top of that, its AIG - not total income. You get over 10k exemption for 2 people - so it is really $53,352 - then you get exemptions for each additional person. You can justify it however you want, but the simple fact is half of the country is working to take care of the other half.

I can imagine living as a single parent with three kids making 40k. Money wouldn't be the issue as much as being responsible with the money you have. I can also say I don't have 3 kids because I know how much they cost. Having 3 kids you cannot take care of is what? Oh, yea, irresponsible. Maybe you should not reward people who are irresponsible.

Now that person is not only gtting 5k back,they aren't paying taxes all year, so they are really making 40k cleared, where as a single person with the same job would be paying in about 10k in federal taxes with no refund. So tell me why it is that two people with the same job and making the same amount bring home radically different amounts of money? The person with 3 kids is making 40k, only being taxes on 30k of it, then getting a huge credit that wipes out all of their taxes and gets them a refund. In the end they are getting back 5k+ of money they never payed in, while the person without kids is paying something like 7000k in for the year. The person with children is making 45k take home, and the person without is making 33k. So why do two people with completely equal jobs and pay make so much different in the end? Because people like you believe that communism and 'spreading the wealth' is ok. Why not just take everything from everyone and only give out welfare. That is what the left is about apparently. And the right are a bunch of scumbags too with their nosey moral crap.

I really don't understand how anyone could support either of those objectives. Personal oppression or financial oppression - wow, great choices.

UncleBuck said:
bullshit. imagine living as a single parent on just over $40,000 a year with three kids to take care of and support. that is the reality that many face. many have it worse, as $40,000 a year equates to only about $20 per hour, a decent wage for the 75% of people in the country that don't have the luxury of a college education (and some who do).

the government provides incentive in form of a subsidy for that person to work, at a rate of about $5,000 to the $40,000 earned, or 12.5%. Would you rather they leach $40,000 in welfare and food stamps and free health care, or would you rather play the odds and incentivize them to work?

now keep in mind, this helps children the most. if you have no kids, you get WAY less, to the tune of 5% incentive to work. if we raise that it will provide more incentive to work, rather than leech, as well as provide opportunities to break the cycle of poverty.

hell, i invested only a little over $1,500 to start a little venture that pays my bills nowadays. and since i earned over 28k a year single, i would not have qualified for eic. so this argument is purely motivated by my desire not to see this credit revoked.

maniacs like you who think that eliminating eic at the expense of lower middle class children across the country are the most dangerous thing to america, even more dangerous than pundits who advocate shooting people in the head or strangling someone to death (beck) and those that put crosshairs over elected officials and tell people to reload (palin). what you propose would have no long term effect on our debt and deficits but would mean a lot of strife for children whose parents work hard for a living.

[/LIST]

Rob Roy · Jan 23, 2011

My thoughts on Democrats and Republicans are they represent rival gangs and are slightly different manifestations of the same disease. Each party has an interest in being the "controller". Each party thinks they, not you, can better run your life. Each party will and does initiate government force/extortion to push their agendas.

Each party is wrestling for the gun in the room. NEITHER party really supports liberty. Arguing about which one is better or worse misses the point. One is gnorrhea, the other syphilis. Neither party has a clue of how to protect liberty, both specialize in stealing it.

Hoping either will "rescue" you is a fantasy. Your well being is not part of their agenda. Asking either party, which both have contributed greatly to fucking this country, to fix things is wishful thinking.

medicineman · Jan 23, 2011

Rob Roy said:
My thoughts on Democrats and Republicans are they represent rival gangs and are slightly different manifestations of the same disease. Each party has an interest in being the "controller". Each party thinks they, not you, can better run your life. Each party will and does initiate government force/extortion to push their agendas.

Each party is wrestling for the gun in the room. NEITHER party really supports liberty. Arguing about which one is better or worse misses the point. One is gnorrhea, the other syphilis. Neither party has a clue of how to protect liberty, both specialize in stealing it.

Hoping either will "rescue" you is a fantasy. Your well being is not part of their agenda. Asking either party, which both have contributed greatly to fucking this country, to fix things is wishful thinking.

Although I agree with your basic premis, Having a choice between syphilis and gonorrhea, I'd choose gonorrhea every time, a little shot of anti-biotics and it slithers away, Too bad we couldn't have a similar remedy for the politicians.

Carthoris · Jan 23, 2011

medicineman said:
Although I agree with your basic premis, Having a choice between syphilis and gonorrhea, I'd choose gonorrhea every time, a little shot of anti-biotics and it slithers away, Too bad we couldn't have a similar remedy for the politicians.

Don't start talking like that, your going to make someone go on a killing spree.

Carthoris · Jan 23, 2011

Both sides are piles of crap, completely agreed. The only party that comes close to supporting liberty is the Libertarian party.

UncleBuck · Jan 23, 2011

Carthoris said:
What you are saying is that having a child you cannot take care of means you deserve free money.

my god, you are simple. that is not what i am saying at all. getting a credit against taxes that you have already paid is not 'free money', it is getting to keep more of what you earned.

but more importantly, it is INCENTIVE TO WORK. it is making a bet, and a good one that any decently intelligent person (that excludes you) with any sense of actuarial logic (that also excludes you) would agree on is a good bet.

would you bet $10 if there was a 50% chance you would get back $20? how about if the odds were 51%? how about 49%?

Carthoris said:
Why not say all crackheads should get a $5k refund every year?

crackheads don't generally work, why would i want to subsidize someone for not working?

this is a perfect illustration that crystallizes your failure to understand what EIC actually does. you are like a child that wanders into a movie...

Carthoris said:
I can imagine living as a single parent with three kids making 40k. Money wouldn't be the issue as much as being responsible with the money you have.

you can be as responsible as you want. that amount of money for a family of 5 is nothing.

Carthoris said:
Having 3 kids you cannot take care of is what? Oh, yea, irresponsible. Maybe you should not reward people who are irresponsible.

you call it irresponsible, i call it 'life'. life happens. vasectomies don't always take. condoms break. but i imagine as a libertarian, you would support a woman's right to make her own medical decisions, unlike other pseudo-libertarians like ron paul and rand paul. i could be wrong. you could be a flaming hypocrite like them. or you could advocate abstinence, like christine o'donnell. who knows.

Carthoris said:
Now that person is not only gtting 5k back,they aren't paying taxes all year

now you are simply making up lies. they pay in all year and get EIC as a credit against the taxes they have paid. so funny to watch you argue this when you clearly have zero understanding how it works. like watching my silkie chickens try to fly by flapping their feather-less wings.

Carthoris said:
So why do two people with completely equal jobs and pay make so much different in the end?

i ain't buying your numbers, because they are bullshit and you have demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge so far such that anything i do to further illustrate it is simply overkill. almost like picking on a retarded person, it would not be right. however, to answer your question, the reason why is that kids gotta be shoed, gotta be fed. gotta get shots. etc. expenses that a single person does not have, you see.

but i know how you feel....FUCK THE CHILDREN! you don't get the precept that you live in a society first, and are a libertarian second.

most libertarians struggle with that. everything is the fault of that filthy government squelching away their wealth, it is all their fault, it is never your fault. you are so poor and blameless and a victim. boo fucking hoo, poor you. everything would just be alright if no one ever bothered you. i understand. you are a victim of persecution, like jesus or ghandi.

Carthoris said:
people like you believe that communism and 'spreading the wealth' is ok. Why not just take everything from everyone and only give out welfare. That is what the left is about apparently. And the right are a bunch of scumbags too with their nosey moral crap.

if it makes you feel better, go ahead and think that way. ignore the fat that the actuarial tables exist to justify the beneficence of the EIC and its effectiveness. don't try to think about this like a logical, intelligent person. just go on about how the left is replete with communists and that you libertarians know it all better than anyone and are such victims of persecution. i'll be sure to cry some crocodile tears for you and your persecuted fellow libertarians tonight.

ignore the actuarial tables, you are a blameless angel and a victim of persecution who has been forced to live in a society *GASP*

check that, no one is forcing you to live among a society. you choose to do so. you subject yourself to your victimhood and persecution. so shut the fuck up.

Carthoris · Jan 23, 2011

UncleBuck said:
my god, you are simple. that is not what i am saying at all. getting a credit against taxes that you have already paid is not 'free money', it is getting to keep more of what you earned.

but more importantly, it is INCENTIVE TO WORK. it is making a bet, and a good one that any decently intelligent person (that excludes you) with any sense of actuarial logic (that also excludes you) would agree on is a good bet.

would you bet $10 if there was a 50% chance you would get back $20? how about if the odds were 51%? how about 49%?

crackheads don't generally work, why would i want to subsidize someone for not working?

this is a perfect illustration that crystallizes your failure to understand what EIC actually does. you are like a child that wanders into a movie...

you can be as responsible as you want. that amount of money for a family of 5 is nothing.

you call it irresponsible, i call it 'life'. life happens. vasectomies don't always take. condoms break. but i imagine as a libertarian, you would support a woman's right to make her own medical decisions, unlike other pseudo-libertarians like ron paul and rand paul. i could be wrong. you could be a flaming hypocrite like them. or you could advocate abstinence, like christine o'donnell. who knows.

now you are simply making up lies. they pay in all year and get EIC as a credit against the taxes they have paid. so funny to watch you argue this when you clearly have zero understanding how it works. like watching my silkie chickens try to fly by flapping their feather-less wings.

i ain't buying your numbers, because they are bullshit and you have demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge so far such that anything i do to further illustrate it is simply overkill. almost like picking on a retarded person, it would not be right. however, to answer your question, the reason why is that kids gotta be shoed, gotta be fed. gotta get shots. etc. expenses that a single person does not have, you see.

but i know how you feel....FUCK THE CHILDREN! you don't get the precept that you live in a society first, and are a libertarian second.

most libertarians struggle with that. everything is the fault of that filthy government squelching away their wealth, it is all their fault, it is never your fault. you are so poor and blameless and a victim. boo fucking hoo, poor you. everything would just be alright if no one ever bothered you. i understand. you are a victim of persecution, like jesus or ghandi.

if it makes you feel better, go ahead and think that way. ignore the fat that the actuarial tables exist to justify the beneficence of the EIC and its effectiveness. don't try to think about this like a logical, intelligent person. just go on about how the left is replete with communists and that you libertarians know it all better than anyone and are such victims of persecution. i'll be sure to cry some crocodile tears for you and your persecuted fellow libertarians tonight.

ignore the actuarial tables, you are a blameless angel and a victim of persecution who has been forced to live in a society *GASP*

check that, no one is forcing you to live among a society. you choose to do so. you subject yourself to your victimhood and persecution. so shut the fuck up.

LOL, so basically your entire rebuttal is "your stupid and I have a chart that says its ok".

Simple fact is EIC makes it so everyone with kids who makes less than 60-70k a year, depending on # of dependents, doesn't have to pay taxes at all. The biggest pisser of it all is that if you don't have kids you get raped at the same level. Personal Deductions are like 6k a year, and you get 3500 or whatever for children, then you get 5k back as a 'credit'.

If my wife and I make 60,000. The standard deduction would be 11,400, and 7,300 for exemptions. That means our taxable income would be 41,300. This means I would owe 5,361 in taxes for the year. Add in the 800 making work pay credit or whatever. And you have 4,561 in total taxes owed by us for the year. Seems simple enough, and relatively reasonable.

Now we have 3 kids. We make 60,000. Our taxable income with be 30,350. We will owe 3,719 in taxes. Our credits outstrip what we have payed for the year, and I will get a refund of $81 dollars in this scenario.

Same everything. If I have 3 kids and make 40k, I will get a net refund of 4,518.

Same everything. No kids, but making 40k. I will owe 1,561.

So, EIC is giving irresponsible people money for being irresponsible at the cost of more responsible people. If you didn't give that 4,500 bucks to someone for no reason(4500 more than they payed in) then that 4500 would go to our federal government and the social programs. Or maybe even *gasp* they pay their share of 1,561.

How many people are on EIC? Ive seen it was something like 30 million. 100,000,000,000 is a lot of money considering the government only collects around a trillion dollars in income tax a year. 10% of what is collected is going to give people money who didn't deserve it. That is a crock of shit. How far would 100,000,000,000 go in providing health care to those same people? Not to mention that a pretty good percentage of that is fraud to begin with. How many people need healthcare in the country? 47 million people in the country don't have health care. That could just about insure everyone in the country. That's how huge of a waste EIC is. So lets aid EIC to healthcare to welfare, to food stamps, to tax credits for having kids, to whatever, and thats how big of a pile of crap you end up with.

Give a man a welfare check, feed him for a week
Give a man a job, feed him for life.

UncleBuck · Jan 23, 2011

Carthoris said:
LOL, so basically your entire rebuttal is "your stupid and I have a chart that says its ok".

no, that is an illustration of how simple you are.

i also mentioned the actuarial science behind incentivizing work. that went over your head, understandably. because you are simple.

Carthoris said:
Same everything. If I have 3 kids and make 40k, I will get a net refund of 4,518.

Same everything. No kids, but making 40k. I will owe 1,561.

4500 + 1500 = 6000. seems simple enough. yet a few posts back, you came to the conclusion that...

Carthoris said:
The person with children is making 45k take home, and the person without is making 33k

since 6000 =/= 12000, one or both of your calculations are completely baseless and wrong.

why should i have any faith or confidence in your ability to stand actuarial tables when it is clear you suck at simple math? why should i have any faith or confidence in your calculations when they differ and contradict each other from post to post?

i don't tend to have a lot of confidence in those that talk out of your ass like you clearly are doing.

Carthoris said:
So, EIC is giving irresponsible people money for being irresponsible at the cost of more responsible people.

so, would you call someone who works full time at a $12/hour job to support their child 'irresponsible'?

you are trying to demonize people that work hard as 'irresponsible', but the only one your argument really effects are the innocent children.

but i know that you, as a libertarian, are blameless and a victim, and that demonizing others is your only way to make yourself feel better. have fun with that.

Carthoris said:
How many people are on EIC? Ive seen it was something like 30 million. 100,000,000,000 is a lot of money considering the government only collects around a trillion dollars in income tax a year. 10% of what is collected is going to give people money who didn't deserve it. That is a crock of shit.

you suck at anything involving math and numbers, that is established by now. and these numbers are another great example of that.

and you can't be "on" EIC, you can be eligible to receive the credit, if you are smart enough to take it, work a shit paying job, and have hungry mouths to feed.

Carthoris said:
Give a man a job, feed him for life.

so are you saying the government should provide people with jobs?

that would have come in handy for me, oh well.

Carthoris · Jan 23, 2011

UncleBuck said:
no, that is an illustration of how simple you are.

i also mentioned the actuarial science behind incentivizing work. that went over your head, understandably. because you are simple.

4500 + 1500 = 6000. seems simple enough. yet a few posts back, you came to the conclusion that...

since 6000 =/= 12000, one or both of your calculations are completely baseless and wrong.

why should i have any faith or confidence in your ability to stand actuarial tables when it is clear you suck at simple math? why should i have any faith or confidence in your calculations when they differ and contradict each other from post to post?

i don't tend to have a lot of confidence in those that talk out of your ass like you clearly are doing.

so, would you call someone who works full time at a $12/hour job to support their child 'irresponsible'?

you are trying to demonize people that work hard as 'irresponsible', but the only one your argument really effects are the innocent children.

but i know that you, as a libertarian, are blameless and a victim, and that demonizing others is your only way to make yourself feel better. have fun with that.

you suck at anything involving math and numbers, that is established by now. and these numbers are another great example of that.

and you can't be "on" EIC, you can be eligible to receive the credit, if you are smart enough to take it, work a shit paying job, and have hungry mouths to feed.

so are you saying the government should provide people with jobs?

that would have come in handy for me, oh well.

I know what actuarial science is. Mostly for calculating risks for insurance companies, however, I cannot find any tables that have anything to do with EIC. If you have some, Id love to see them.

The $6000 figure was using H&R blocks tax liability calculator and was accurate. The point remains the same - you are taking thousands of dollars from one person and giving it to another, even within a tax bracket. The 100,000,000,000 number is an estimate @ 3000 per family that could qualify. The government isn't even sure what it is putting out exactly because it is so bloated.

Are you saying people that have kids they can't take care of without financial air from the government aren't irresponsible? Having kids you can't pay for is the same as buying a house you can't pay for - stupid. It isn't like there are no options for birth control. I think the tax burden should be on usage, not on productivity, nor should it be all upon certain citizens. I'm not demonizing anyone but the politicians who get into office based solely on their promises to take money from one person and give it to another.

The fact is that you are leftist and believe society is more important than the individual and that if society would benefit from a move then damn the individual.

If God(s) himself came down and told you the solution wasn't state control of everything you would just hear

. It is hard to argue with that.

I am actively working towards not being part of society. I have to work through it before I can buy myself out of it, I may not completely make it. However, I will have children, and hopefully the foundation I build will be enough for them to be their own people.

Everyone blames someone I suppose in some way. If it makes you feel better to align me against the poor because I think everyone should be treated equally by the government, then go for it.

In the end, the reason it isn't the right thing to do is because it is morally wrong. The end result of what you are trying to do is complete control of the human race. You don't think so, I know. Marx, Lenin, and all of that crew thought the same way you do about society and the individual. Just because you are doing it slowly vs the radical way they did it doesn't make it any different to the end result. What happens when everyone in the bottom 51% of the population gets health care/no taxes and the upper 49% pay for it. What will you rally for then? You won't stop, you will go to the next thing. How about making sure everyone is the same height, weight, hair color, eye color, and the same level of attractiveness? We want to be completely fair and everyone live the same style of life right? We can all eat gruel and live in a white room like some screwed up 80s government is gonna get you movie.

No one ever states the Libertarian view correctly - why? It is different for each person. Just like every democrat has a different level of tolerance to socialist policies and every republican has a different tolerance of conservative policies. I am completely against censoring peoples personal lives(gay marriage, birth control, abortion, ect). I am also against laws to protect people against themselves (marijuana laws, seat belt laws, gun laws, ect) The only thing in common that Libertarians really have is that the Individual is more important than Society. It really has nothing to do with money or what someone else is getting. It is the fact that there is something wrong with the society we live in when a man is deprived of his property or rights based on someone else's needs without his permission. It isn't hard to understand why most people who get EIC and collect welfare, food stamps, and other government benefits are democrats. The Constitution stood as a barrier to this, and it has been slowly eroded away.

There is a reason why our fathers made us a constitutional republic and not a democracy - it's because the people are stupid and the Constitution is there to protect people from stupidity.

AutoFems Rule !! · Jan 23, 2011

There's a cunt hair's difference between them !!! www.421blog.com

Peace

UncleBuck · Jan 23, 2011

Carthoris said:
I know what actuarial science is. Mostly for calculating risks for insurance companies, however, I cannot find any tables that have anything to do with EIC. If you have some, Id love to see them.

i don't have any tables, it is pretty common sense. a $5,000 incentive for someone to work at $40,000 is worth it if it keeps $5,001 or more from being collected some other way.

Carthoris said:
The $6000 figure was using H&R blocks tax liability calculator and was accurate. The point remains the same - you are taking thousands of dollars from one person and giving it to another, even within a tax bracket. The 100,000,000,000 number is an estimate @ 3000 per family that could qualify. The government isn't even sure what it is putting out exactly because it is so bloated.

admission that you 'guesstimate' your figures, which changed from post to post....yawn. too easy.

Carthoris said:
Are you saying people that have kids they can't take care of without financial air from the government aren't irresponsible? Having kids you can't pay for is the same as buying a house you can't pay for - stupid.

because we all know that once you have children, there is no way you could ever lose your job or have to take one that is lower paying. that is completely inconceivable and beyond the realm of possibility. let's go with your theory that they are simply irresponsible :roll:

do you see why i call you simple? you think in simplistic, non-realistic ways. quite often. just take a look at your citation-free guesstimates above. simpleton logic.

Carthoris said:
The end result of what you are trying to do is complete control of the human race.

yes, i plan on accomplishing complete control of the human race by advocating that parents who work low paying jobs get to keep more of what they earn. i am working towards complete control of the human race one immunization at a time! i am evil!

Carthoris said:
most people who get EIC and collect welfare, food stamps, and other government benefits are democrats.

is that right now, senor simple?

reconcile, please.

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68 )
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

kinda looks like those blue states pay for the red ones to me....probably because i want complete control of the human race though.

you are fun, man. just keep talking, you are golden.

Carthoris · Jan 24, 2011

UncleBuck said:
i don't have any tables, it is pretty common sense. a $5,000 incentive for someone to work at $40,000 is worth it if it keeps $5,001 or more from being collected some other way.

admission that you 'guesstimate' your figures, which changed from post to post....yawn. too easy.

because we all know that once you have children, there is no way you could ever lose your job or have to take one that is lower paying. that is completely inconceivable and beyond the realm of possibility. let's go with your theory that they are simply irresponsible

do you see why i call you simple? you think in simplistic, non-realistic ways. quite often. just take a look at your citation-free guesstimates above. simpleton logic.

yes, i plan on accomplishing complete control of the human race by advocating that parents who work low paying jobs get to keep more of what they earn. i am working towards complete control of the human race one immunization at a time! i am evil!

is that right now, senor simple?

reconcile, please.

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68 )
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

kinda looks like those blue states pay for the red ones to me....probably because i want complete control of the human race though.

you are fun, man. just keep talking, you are golden.

Thats assuming that those states are 100% red or blue. This shows your assumption is just that, an assumption, and one that is only half thought out to prove your side. The definition of federal spending seems to be lacking. Does it count military spending in the states as well? It only calls it 'federal spending', if you have a population of under a million like Washington DC and N Dakota then it doesn't take much to get to 2 dollars a person in spending. In fact the only thing the states receiving the most in federal funding have in common is the fact that they have small populations. Nothing over 5 million, and most of them are around 1 million people. All welfare is not federal spending, and all federal spending is not welfare. Using that as a defense against a fact is useless. The fact being that most people on welfare/government assistance/and collecting eic are democrat and vote democrat because they get benefits.

If 58% of people making under 30,000 are democrat and 40% republican, then they make up the majority of welfare/eic/food stamps and other. These are the exit polls for the 2010 election. Also, looking at the other end at the people who make more than 50k, you can easily see which political party is paying the most taxes.

You are still missing the point that what you do in your life is your responsibility, not the governments or your neighbors.

It is simple - you are responsible for yourself. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Why present it as anything else?

We give people 5k so they don't use 5001 in benefits? You don't have the tables you referred to multiple times as your reasoning? You have never seen them more than likely. You don't have any proof of what you are saying is what you mean. The only reason they would possibly use more money in benefits is if they quit their job because they didn't make enough so they could collect welfare. What you are saying is that they work harder knowing they get more money than they would get mooching, but if they got more mooching then they would use more government assistance and work less. Because the government will take care of them at a certain level it isn't worth working past that level - this is exactly why things like EIC are wrong. You are saying if we give them this money they wont use other government programs that shouldn't be there taking care of people long term in the first place. What did people do before all these programs? Oh yea, they got a job if they didn't have money and worked harder if they wanted more.

Your 'evidence' that I was wrong was a complete fluff, and I easily disproved it and presented counter facts that CANNOT be disputed. Poor people vote democrat more than republicans, and since most poor people are democrats, most of the welfare and other benefits goes to them. Those are only the current figures that are leaning more Republican than the 2008 election which was even higher.

In the end you will never agree with me, and I will never agree with you. It is an opinion on what is moral and just. We have different ideas on it.

UncleBuck · Jan 24, 2011

you are also making assumptions, so stop calling my kettle black. a lot of those poor, red votes come from the poorest states of all - kentucky, mississippi, alabama, arkansas. who is to say that they are not using a disproportionate amount of assistance? oh yes, that's right....your assumption says so.

as far as your question: what did people do before all these programs (referring to the minimum social safety net)?

they starved. they lived in poverty. before the founding of a minimum social safety net by fdr, grandma lived in poverty more often than not (tough for stats to bear it out back then, but the stats get clearer over time and show beyond any doubt that social safety programs have led to a marked decrease in poverty).

i am not missing the point that what one does in life is their responsibility. i embrace that. and as a member of a greater society, i also understand that 'i am my brother's keeper' and that we should judge ourselves by how we treat the least among us. this is what makes us a great nation, the fact that we care for all our people.

i am not so sure why you, as a libertarian, are so adamantly opposed to a credit that most often simply allows a person to keep more of the money that they earned in the first place.

i am also not sure why you, as a human being, would not want to advocate for the hard working schmucks, stuck at a low paying job, doing what they have to in order to feed their children. wouldn't you want to provide some incentive for people to work? it is a no-brainer, hence the existence of the EIC. but i can't expect a libertarian to understand such a mid-level economic concept like this one. by the way, you never addressed my point that a responsible person could lose their job through no fault of their own AFTER having children. in fact, it happens a lot.

medicineman · Jan 24, 2011

UncleBuck said:
you are also making assumptions, so stop calling my kettle black. a lot of those poor, red votes come from the poorest states of all - kentucky, mississippi, alabama, arkansas. who is to say that they are not using a disproportionate amount of assistance? oh yes, that's right....your assumption says so.

as far as your question: what did people do before all these programs (referring to the minimum social safety net)?

they starved. they lived in poverty. before the founding of a minimum social safety net by fdr, grandma lived in poverty more often than not (tough for stats to bear it out back then, but the stats get clearer over time and show beyond any doubt that social safety programs have led to a marked decrease in poverty).

i am not missing the point that what one does in life is their responsibility. i embrace that. and as a member of a greater society, i also understand that 'i am my brother's keeper' and that we should judge ourselves by how we treat the least among us. this is what makes us a great nation, the fact that we care for all our people.

i am not so sure why you, as a libertarian, are so adamantly opposed to a credit that most often simply allows a person to keep more of the money that they earned in the first place.

i am also not sure why you, as a human being, would not want to advocate for the hard working schmucks, stuck at a low paying job, doing what they have to in order to feed their children. wouldn't you want to provide some incentive for people to work? it is a no-brainer, hence the existence of the EIC. but i can't expect a libertarian to understand such a mid-level economic concept like this one. by the way, you never addressed my point that a responsible person could lose their job through no fault of their own AFTER having children. in fact, it happens a lot.

It's uncanny how in Vegas, in the brief span of 1 year, unemployment went from 6% to 14%+. The bottom just dropped right out. People don't have that discretionary spending cash that they used to bring to town, no visitors, no jobs, and the construction trade just plummeted to zero after the crash. My house that was once valued at the inflated amount of 300K+ is now languishing around the 100K-125K, probably the real value, But try and sell it for that, no way. The banks are holding foreclosure propertys and having 50-70% off sales. The used housing market is as dead as employment.

Carthoris · Jan 25, 2011

UncleBuck said:
you are also making assumptions, so stop calling my kettle black. a lot of those poor, red votes come from the poorest states of all - kentucky, mississippi, alabama, arkansas. who is to say that they are not using a disproportionate amount of assistance? oh yes, that's right....your assumption says so.

The issue was it was an assumption that had no basis. The population of those 4 states combines is about 15 million - less than half the size of California. Poor people are poor people, regardless of what state, and most of them vote democrat.

as far as your question: what did people do before all these programs (referring to the minimum social safety net)?

they starved. they lived in poverty. before the founding of a minimum social safety net by fdr, grandma lived in poverty more often than not (tough for stats to bear it out back then, but the stats get clearer over time and show beyond any doubt that social safety programs have led to a marked decrease in poverty).

i am not missing the point that what one does in life is their responsibility. i embrace that. and as a member of a greater society, i also understand that 'i am my brother's keeper' and that we should judge ourselves by how we treat the least among us. this is what makes us a great nation, the fact that we care for all our people.

i am not so sure why you, as a libertarian, are so adamantly opposed to a credit that most often simply allows a person to keep more of the money that they earned in the first place.[/quote]

I am not opposed to SSI, since you pay into that, you get it back. It is a pretty straight forward system, you pay per month into a retirement fund basically, and you get money back based on your contributions. You should be allowed to leave the system, if you want. The issue with SSI is that it has been poorly managed, not the idea behind it. It isn't any different than saving for retirement, though I am pretty sure me just putting that money in a retirement account that I am not allowed to withdraw money from would be far better for most people, since the government wouldn't have control of it. People did what they had to in order to take care of themselves. I am not a religious person, and I have no obligation to be my 'brothers keeper' other than what I feel inside of myself. What I do on a personal level is what I feel my obligation is. I would be able to do a lot more, and potential better, if the government was not involved in my charitable giving.

It isn't that I am opposed to anyone keeping what they earned. However, I am opposed to anyone being a net drain on the system and causing others to pay more. EIC causes anyone under 50k with kids to not pay any taxes, federally(not meaning SSI). Yet, they are still entitled to the protections and help of the federal government. Wouldn't it be a little fairer if everyone got to keep the same portion of their share? Why would I pay 10k in because I don't have kids, yet someone in the same position have a vastly different tax bill because they have kids? It is because they are punishing others or causing the deficit to go higher by doing this that there is an issue, not so much what the people are getting from it. You cannot give away money that you don't have for long.

i am also not sure why you, as a human being, would not want to advocate for the hard working schmucks, stuck at a low paying job, doing what they have to in order to feed their children. wouldn't you want to provide some incentive for people to work? it is a no-brainer, hence the existence of the EIC. but i can't expect a libertarian to understand such a mid-level economic concept like this one. by the way, you never addressed my point that a responsible person could lose their job through no fault of their own AFTER having children. in fact, it happens a lot.

Being for fairness and against waste isn't the same as not caring about other people. I want everyone to be treated fairly. If rich people didn't have to pay taxes because they are rich, I would feel the same way about it. A fair tax would tax everyone equally. Progressive taxation is wrong - especially when the bottom half are not paying anything. The incentive to work is so you have money, and can pay to live in a house and eat. They should save so they can take care of themselves while they don't have a job. Unemployment isn't a tax, as much as an insurance. It is kind of like a part of your pay/benefits in so far as that. Between savings and unemployment you should have enough to live for a few months, you should be out finding a job, it is not vacation.

I am also against wasted spending in all areas. We don't need to spend trillions on our military, we can already destroy the world a billion times over. We have enough armed citizens than invading the country would be disaster for anyone, even without our military on the ground. We don't need bases around the world, or to give foreign aid to anyone. Taxes should be lower, and Tariffs raised to pay for things, at a reduced rate. That way the costs of goods bears the cost of the federal government. They should not transfer wealth from one state to another, the state should deal with its matters internally.

UncleBuck · Jan 25, 2011

Carthoris said:
Poor people are poor people, regardless of what state, and most of them vote democrat.

by what you graph shows me, most wealthy people also vote democrat.

Carthoris said:
People did what they had to in order to take care of themselves.

and grandma lived in poverty more often than not. not the case anymore. an example of the success of a progressive program.

Carthoris said:
I am not a religious person, and I have no obligation to be my 'brothers keeper' other than what I feel inside of myself. What I do on a personal level is what I feel my obligation is. I would be able to do a lot more, and potential better, if the government was not involved in my charitable giving.

if you're trying to argue that charitable giving would be some miracle fix, which i don't think you are, it is just not true.

and you don't need to be a religious person to 'be your brother's keeper'. swedes donate the most on a percentage basis of income, yet are some of the most non-religious people out there.

Carthoris said:
It isn't that I am opposed to anyone keeping what they earned. However, I am opposed to anyone being a net drain on the system and causing others to pay more.

EIC does not cause anyone to have to pay more. everyone pays what they pay, and those eligible for EIC get more back. but we have never raised taxes on anyone to fund EIC.

Carthoris said:
A fair tax would tax everyone equally. Progressive taxation is wrong

a fair tax, or flat tax, would not treat everyone equally. paying 10% taxes on $15,000 hurts a lot more than paying 10% taxes on $1,500,000.

Carthoris said:
Between savings and unemployment you should have enough to live for a few months, you should be out finding a job, it is not vacation.

hello, i am a liberal from reality land. i just picked up a job after 19 months and over 225 tailored resumes and cover letters and countless other applications and talks with managers. and i wasn't picky about it either, i tried for any place that was hiring, and i have an excellent work history. i have been promoted at any job i have ever worked. i ended up taking a job at 50% less pay and no benefits.

sometimes landing a job is easy. but not always.

Carthoris said:
I am also against wasted spending in all areas.

is anybody FOR wasteful spending?

endive · Jan 25, 2011

Instead of taxing what people earn, tax people in accordance with what they spend, sans food, medical and business expenses.

UncleBuck · Jan 25, 2011

endive said:
Instead of taxing what people earn, tax people in accordance with what they spend, sans food, medical and business expenses.

that would be a regressive tax. people that live hand to mouth would have even less chance to break the cycle of poverty as they'd be paying at higher percentages of income than the wealthy.

a progressive consumption tax would be fine.

Thoughts on democrats and republicans.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member