Upper Class Welfare

[WoodwindWhistler]

An entertaining little video on subsidy spending.

One thing annoyed me, though. She called tax deductions "handouts." SMH. *facedesk* Keeping what you earn is not government spending money on you, a negative transaction, it's them agreeing not to keep your money for whatever reason they deem for an almost neutral net effect on budget balance. (not including interest that they gain and you lose. How in the heck can anyone consider that a "handout"?)

Yes, the government LOVES you thinking that they're so nice and their handing money back that was already yours in the first place is "giving" you money. They very purposefully designed the convoluted and inefficient system to feel that way.

Stop the BS. Look imto Fair Tax. https://www.youtube.com/user/FairTaxOfficial

[Ashmedai]

I love upper class mentalities. Such a lovely, giving, fantastic bunch of people.

[SorryNotSorry]

Look, if people in the upper class want something, they're going to find ways to get it.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Fair enough, OP. But how did you feel when Mitt Romney didn't disclose how much he paid in taxes on whatever he earned? Don't we all pretty much know it would have caused a bigger backlash against his candidacy to have it revealed that someone who was destroying companies was paying a smaller percentage on that money he made by hurting peoples' liveliehoods than the very people to whom he did such things?

Even the word 'earnings' is a relative term too. Six of the wealthiest people in the country are Wal-Mart/Walton heirs, but do you see them doing hard work like stocking shelves or greeting people at the place that supplies them these earnings?

Or how about how sports stadiums are financed? Where the players and the owners pretty much live off the largesse of the middle class, paying ZILCH towards their 'workplace' construction and maintenance. Talk about welfare Cadillacs.......

[Trava u doma]

The thing is, we pay taxes and in return we expect certain services. We are all dependant on the state. I liked this video, thank you.

[Sally]

Multibillionaire Romney finally said, off-handedly, that he thought he paid around 14% in taxes. When I was working for less than $35K/year, I paid 25%.

It may be "your" money, OP, but in return for paying taxes on income to the government, you receive all sorts of services, including roads, running water, electricity, bridges, and other rather necessary accoutrements. What you also receive, which you may not care about, is the knowledge that some in your community (including children) who for many different reasons can't work are able to get food, housing, and medical care.

Taxes are the price of civilization.

[sonofzeal]

Those who have benefited most from life in our society have the strongest responsibility to uphold it.

[Captain Darkhorse]

I'm legitimately poor (I make under 10k a year), and my tax bracket is 10%. There are some individuals who make millions each year, and after deductions and all that they end up paying less in taxes than I do.

Tax deductions ARE handouts. A person is automatically slated into a particular tax bracket based on their income. Any money you get back (are allowed to keep) is technically a handout. And the individuals taking the biggest handouts are currently the wealthy.

[Sally]

Captain Darkhorse, on 18 Apr 2014 - 1:46 PM, said:

I'm legitimately poor (I make under 10k a year), and my tax bracket is 10%. There are some individuals who make millions each year, and after deductions and all that they end up paying less in taxes than I do.

Tax deductions ARE handouts. A person is automatically slated into a particular tax bracket based on their income. Any money you get back (are allowed to keep) is technically a handout. And the individuals taking the biggest handouts are currently the wealthy.

And that tax bracket is determined AFTER all the deductions are taken, and rich peoples' financial managers are hired to manage "wealth" in such a way that every deduction possible can be used, and rich people themselves contribute to campaigns of legislators who make those deductions legal. Which is why multibillionaire Romney paid 14%.

[alucard]

Those who have benefited most from life in our society have the strongest responsibility to uphold it.

Just checking, but you're trying to make the rich responsible for upholding the stuff that not they but you benefit from the most, right? Meaning that it's not really the responsibility of people who benefit from something the most to uphold it, but rather it's just that the riches should uphold everything in everyone elses stead?

[sonofzeal]

Those who have benefited most from life in our society have the strongest responsibility to uphold it.

Just checking, but you're trying to make the rich responsible for upholding the stuff that not they but you benefit from the most, right? Meaning that it's not really the responsibility of people who benefit from something the most to uphold it, but rather it's just that the riches should uphold everything in everyone elses stead?

Military, education, police, research grants, healthcare infrastructure - these all benefit the wealthy directly, and generally more so than they benefit the poor. The rest benefit them indirectly, since a healthy middle class contribute more economic stimulus than the poor. People living below the poverty tend to contribute little, consume a lot of resources, and frequently leave substantial debts (and nevermind the humanitarian arguments). Government programs that assist people in maintaining the financial stability of borderline populations is money well spent in boosting economic growth of the country as a whole and hence the personal fortunes of the wealthy who tend to benefit substantially from increase economic activity and disposable incomes. Whether specific government programs achieve that end in a responsible and efficient manner is, of course, always in question. But then it's less about whether the rich should be paying taxes, and more about fixing specific tax-funded programs.

[SorryNotSorry]

Those who have benefited most from life in our society have the strongest responsibility to uphold it.

...though many undoubtedly wish they didn't.

Sure, there are some very wealthy people who behave in altruistic ways---George Soros trying to get pot legalized, or whatever Charles & David Koch have been doing that's made them the darlings of the conservatives---but geherally the temptation to have the most authority with the least responsibility is too great for most humans to pass up.

[alucard]

Military, education, police, research grants, healthcare infrastructure - these all benefit the wealthy directly, and generally more so than they benefit the poor.

Then the wealthy just don't know what's good for them? Well, I suppose the vast majority of people don't... no surprise there. Good thing the few of us who do are around to tell them. <_<

Speaking of which, not a whole damn lot of progress in the oh so important field of economic inequality you're going to make if you keep on supporting the said things that benefit the few wealthy more than everyone else. Down with it all maybe? :twisted:

[SorryNotSorry]

Down with it all maybe? :twisted:

You know... one thing that characterizes the MGTOW community when they start waxing political is the "impending collapse". Here at AVEN, we're a little smarter than that (we know TPTB ain't gonna let the System fail anytime soon, not when they're bleeding the rest of us dry), but a lot of MGTOW have this post-apocalyptic fantasy where they'll rule the country like Confederate slavemasters, keep women tethered to the kitchen stove barefoot and pregnant, and bullets will be abundant and cheap. I'm not kidding, that's their mentality.

[sonofzeal]

Then the wealthy just don't know what's good for them? Well, I suppose the vast majority of people don't... no surprise there. Good thing the few of us who do are around to tell them. <_<

It's the Prisoner's Dilemma. A group may all benefit the most from Activity A, but if any individuals benefit more from doing Activity B while all the rest do Activity A, a whole lot will do it even if the result is destructive and cancels out the potential benefit.

If all wealthy people paid their fair share of taxes, they all benefit. If none of them paid their fair share, they all suffer. But if the rest of them paid their fair share while the Walton family skimped, the Waltons would individually come out ahead of where they'd be otherwise, so it's in their capitalistic best interest to do so. And, strangely enough, recent research shows that the higher the socio-economic status, the more likely people are to take those "greedy" options when presented.

Also... a lot of those benefits are distant and vague. People tend to take such things for granted, especially those with strong senses of entitlement, so it's difficult for an individual to appreciate value of such things, while everyone is keenly aware when the gov't takes a chunk out of their income. When you're focused on quarterly bottom lines, a million dollars going to various taxes can seem a lot more pressing than a new wing going up at a hospital two states over.

Speaking of which, not a whole damn lot of progress in the oh so important field of economic inequality you're going to make if you keep on supporting the said things that benefit the few wealthy more than everyone else. Down with it all maybe? :twisted:

Economic inequality isn't, directly, the problem. Increased poverty and decreased social mobility, are. It doesn't really make a whole lot of difference whether Bill Gates has a billion or a trillion net worth, but it makes a huge difference if a family is surviving on an income of a thousand a month compared to ten thousand. It's the fact that the wealthiest in our society are making great gains while career-type positions for lower and middle class are rapidly disappearing in favour of part-time minimum wage temp work.

If there's a healthy job market, a strong middle class, and a decent standard of living for the bottom quartile, I couldn't give two figs how many zeroes the wealthiest members of society put behind their net worth.

But they do still have the highest responsibility to uphold our society as a whole through taxes.

[Tanwen]

Those who have the most are best able to employ accountants to find all the loopholes to avoid paying tax; which leaves 'us peasants' to pick up the tab :(

[alucard]

It's the Prisoner's Dilemma. A group may all benefit the most from Activity A, but if any individuals benefit more from doing Activity B while all the rest do Activity A, a whole lot will do it even if the result is destructive and cancels out the potential benefit.

If all wealthy people paid their fair share of taxes, they all benefit. If none of them paid their fair share, they all suffer. But if the rest of them paid their fair share while the Walton family skimped, the Waltons would individually come out ahead of where they'd be otherwise, so it's in their capitalistic best interest to do so. And, strangely enough, recent research shows that the higher the socio-economic status, the more likely people are to take those "greedy" options when presented.

It seems to me you have not placed the non-wealthy people into your dilemma. Surely, it is not to emphasize that the good of the wealthy people is your sole concern?

Economic inequality isn't, directly, the problem. Increased poverty and decreased social mobility, are. It doesn't really make a whole lot of difference whether Bill Gates has a billion or a trillion net worth, but it makes a huge difference if a family is surviving on an income of a thousand a month compared to ten thousand. It's the fact that the wealthiest in our society are making great gains while career-type positions for lower and middle class are rapidly disappearing in favour of part-time minimum wage temp work.

If there's a healthy job market, a strong middle class, and a decent standard of living for the bottom quartile, I couldn't give two figs how many zeroes the wealthiest members of society put behind their net worth.

But they do still have the highest responsibility to uphold our society as a whole through taxes.

See, that's you whole problem. You say [they], where I (and the strong middle class you so shamelessly IFed) would have said [we]. No doubt the failing middle class today has a long list of things [they] should be doing. They, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they... Never [we].

Those who have the most are best able to employ accountants to find all the loopholes to avoid paying tax; which leaves 'us peasants' to pick up the tab :(

It IS your tab, is it not?

[Sally]

alucard, on 19 Apr 2014 - 2:14 PM, said:

Tanwen, on 19 Apr 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

Those who have the most are best able to employ accountants to find all the loopholes to avoid paying tax; which leaves 'us peasants' to pick up the tab :(

It IS your tab, is it not?

No. When wealthy people avoid paying tax, and low-income people can't pay much tax, a town, county, state, or country's revenue suffers, and that governmental entity can't provide the level of services needed by its residents. That has happened to the US, because the percentage of tax levied the wealthy has steadily gone down over the decades. Our whole physical infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) and human services (food to the hungry, etc.) have suffered as a result.

[sonofzeal]

See, that's you whole problem. You say [they], where I (and the strong middle class you so shamelessly IFed) would have said [we]. No doubt the failing middle class today has a long list of things [they] should be doing. They, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they... Never [we].

I've been out of work for six months, stuck (because of family commitments) in a city that quite literally has the worst job market in my entire country. And I'm not exactly paying taxes on income I don't have. So, yes, at this particular time, "they".

Not that any of that should be relevant to my arguments. If you disagree with my premises or logic, say so. They should stand or fall on their own merits.

[SorryNotSorry]

alucard, on 19 Apr 2014 - 2:14 PM, said:

Tanwen, on 19 Apr 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

Those who have the most are best able to employ accountants to find all the loopholes to avoid paying tax; which leaves 'us peasants' to pick up the tab :(

It IS your tab, is it not?

No. When wealthy people avoid paying tax, and low-income people can't pay much tax, a town, county, state, or country's revenue suffers, and that governmental entity can't provide the level of services needed by its residents. That has happened to the US, because the percentage of tax levied the wealthy has steadily gone down over the decades. Our whole physical infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) and human services (food to the hungry, etc.) have suffered as a result.

OTOH if the alternative was to happen---the government closes the loopholes and tells the wealthy to pay up or else---you know what would happen, those with the most, if forced to pay the most, would take their ball and go home... either in the form of capital flight (like what happens often in Third World countries whenever some non-crony stages a coup), or having lawmakers responsible for the policy shift rubbed out. That's why it doesn't happen here, and that's why the survivalist nutjobs who are waiting for "the Collapse" are going to be waiting until the day after forever.

[alucard]

Those who have the most are best able to employ accountants to find all the loopholes to avoid paying tax; which leaves 'us peasants' to pick up the tab :(

It IS your tab, is it not?

No. When wealthy people avoid paying tax, and low-income people can't pay much tax, a town, county, state, or country's revenue suffers, and that governmental entity can't provide the level of services needed by its residents. That has happened to the US, because the percentage of tax levied the wealthy has steadily gone down over the decades. Our whole physical infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) and human services (food to the hungry, etc.) have suffered as a result.

So, you basically managed to make the few wealthy pay your tab for a while, and it's a problem now that they don't wanna anymore. Where's the 'no'?

See, that's you whole problem. You say [they], where I (and the strong middle class you so shamelessly IFed) would have said [we]. No doubt the failing middle class today has a long list of things [they] should be doing. They, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they... Never [we].

I've been out of work for six months, stuck (because of family commitments) in a city that quite literally has the worst job market in my entire country. And I'm not exactly paying taxes on income I don't have. So, yes, at this particular time, "they".

Nothing particular about it. It WILL remain [they] for as long as you bloody well please to make shit someone elses responsibility. The job market, for example - when is it going to improve? When [they] create more jobs for you? Wtf do you need [them] for?!

[Tanwen]

I figure that after almost 50 years of working and paying that I have and continue to fulfil my obligations. I accept that services need to be paid for and I'm OK with that; I'm happy to pull my own weight but I object to pulling theirs as well, especially when they get considerably more than I do yet pay considerably less in tax.

[Sally]

alucard, on 20 Apr 2014 - 12:36 AM, said:.

So, you basically managed to make the few wealthy pay your tab for a while, and it's a problem now that they don't wanna anymore. Where's the 'no'?

When Eisenhower was president, the upper tax limit was about 80%. Since I was a child then, I had nothing to do with it. Each Republican administration/Congress has since then reduced that percentage. I don't vote for Republicans for very good reasons (see post above).

[alucard]

So, you basically managed to make the few wealthy pay your tab for a while, and it's a problem now that they don't wanna anymore. Where's the 'no'?

When Eisenhower was president, the upper tax limit was about 80%. Since I was a child then, I had nothing to do with it. Each Republican administration/Congress has since then reduced that percentage. I don't vote for Republicans for very good reasons (see post above).

Yeah... it's a real shame your parents didn't taught you how to not depend on the rich and just tax them as high as you can, and the rest of the strong middle class thingy. Speaking generally about the society here, since individually, it's not just you who had nothing to do with it back then and suffers having no idea how to do it now.

I figure that after almost 50 years of working and paying that I have and continue to fulfil my obligations. I accept that services need to be paid for and I'm OK with that; I'm happy to pull my own weight but I object to pulling theirs as well, especially when they get considerably more than I do yet pay considerably less in tax.

Well, it's the very few rich we're talking... besides the fact that the actual sum they pay is greater then everyone elses, they also don't use some of the stuff taxes pay for anyways. I don't suppose they school their kids with your tax money in public schools, yet you probably want them to pull the weight of schooling your kids with their taxes, no? Just a thought. Cuz I'm sure they're pulling their own weight just fine.

[BerenErchamion]

Since each individual is entitled, by the mere fact of his or her existence, to an equal share of social wealth, possessing any wealth in excess of the social mean is an act of theft from those who have less. If taxation is what it takes to take back from the wealthy what is rightfully ours, great. Restitution is a laudable goal.

So, you basically managed to make the few wealthy pay your tab for a while, and it's a problem now that they don't wanna anymore. Where's the 'no'?

When Eisenhower was president, the upper tax limit was about 80%. Since I was a child then, I had nothing to do with it. Each Republican administration/Congress has since then reduced that percentage. I don't vote for Republicans for very good reasons (see post above).

Yeah... it's a real shame your parents didn't taught you how to not depend on the rich and just tax them as high as you can, and the rest of the strong middle class thingy. Speaking generally about the society here, since individually, it's not just you who had nothing to do with it back then and suffers having no idea how to do it now.

I figure that after almost 50 years of working and paying that I have and continue to fulfil my obligations. I accept that services need to be paid for and I'm OK with that; I'm happy to pull my own weight but I object to pulling theirs as well, especially when they get considerably more than I do yet pay considerably less in tax.

Well, it's the very few rich we're talking... besides the fact that the actual sum they pay is greater then everyone elses, they also don't use some of the stuff taxes pay for anyways. I don't suppose they school their kids with your tax money in public schools, yet you probably want them to pull the weight of schooling your kids with their taxes, no? Just a thought. Cuz I'm sure they're pulling their own weight just fine.

No, the rich are not "pulling their own weight"--they're stealing from the productive members of society to increase their own well-being at their expense.

[Sally]

alucard, on 20 Apr 2014 - 1:51 PM, said:

So, you basically managed to make the few wealthy pay your tab for a while, and it's a problem now that they don't wanna anymore. Where's the 'no'?

When Eisenhower was president, the upper tax limit was about 80%. Since I was a child then, I had nothing to do with it. Each Republican administration/Congress has since then reduced that percentage. I don't vote for Republicans for very good reasons (see post above).

Yeah... it's a real shame your parents didn't taught you how to not depend on the rich and just tax them as high as you can, and the rest of the strong middle class thingy. Speaking generally about the society here, since individually, it's not just you who had nothing to do with it back then and suffers having no idea how to do it now.

You know, Alu, sometimes you make sense. But this time you made absolutely no sense whatsoever. It doesn't always work just to knee-jerkedly insult people unless you have some plausible groundwork for doing so. Which in my case you don't, because there's been a large amount of time between my childhood under Eisenhower and my late adulthood under Obama, and during that time I've done my bit as an active citizen.

Have you?

[alucard]

Since each individual is entitled, by the mere fact of his or her existence, to an equal share of social wealth, possessing any wealth in excess of the social mean is an act of theft from those who have less. If taxation is what it takes to take back from the wealthy what is rightfully ours, great. Restitution is a laudable goal.

No, the rich are not "pulling their own weight"--they're stealing from the productive members of society to increase their own well-being at their expense.

lol, no.

You know, Alu, sometimes you make sense. But this time you made absolutely no sense whatsoever. It doesn't always work just to knee-jerkedly insult people unless you have some plausible groundwork for doing so. Which in my case you don't, because there's been a large amount of time between my childhood under Eisenhower and my late adulthood under Obama, and during that time I've done my bit as an active citizen.

Have you?

Nope. Playing dead weight here. And definitely not thinking that I'm entitled to any share of social wealth by mere fact of my existence... think I should?

Ok, whatever. If you're pulling your own weight then let's just live and let live.

[marki]

I hate that our country is (becoming?) an oligarchy. The fact that a few super wealthy guys can control the government to suit their needs while abandoning the vast majority of citizens is sick. However, unless the citizens would stop being distracted by fake none issues ( also normally created by the wealthy) and band together to stop those people nothing will ever happen.

What really is sick is that wages haven't increased in this country for almost 40 years.....basically the "middle class" is shrinking so quickly that we will be left with a two tier system of haves and have nots. That is why I am leaving!

[alucard]

What really is sick is that wages haven't increased in this country for almost 40 years.....basically the "middle class" is shrinking so quickly that we will be left with a two tier system of haves and have nots. That is why I am leaving!

And they're not likely to increase ever if people leave for a foreign welfare state (as if it would take them ) rather than become employers and pay the better wage themselves.

[marki]

Yeah because jobs are so easy and plentiful!

Give me a break.....go work and get paid nothing only to spend it all back so I can be stuck in a perpetual cycle of poorness? Having no to low chance of upward mobility is crushing. We didn't use to be this way when our country was more socialized.

So actually I am leaving this country to work as an immigrant. Because having a chance to be successful isn't possible for the vast majority of Americans.