wWhy are liberals so easily brain washed into thinking government must give them something.

[kellyb]

The United States Postal and Internet Service.

US-PIS isn't a very appealing abbreviation, though.

lol

[Powerboss]

The first self-evident factor is that we give a lot to the government. It isn't insane to expect something back.

M

Who is "we"?

Half the country doesn't pay income taxes. As a matter of fact, those that "give" the most to the Government, get the least back in terms of benefits (Unless you are one of Baraka's billionaire cronies).

There is a significant portion of the population, many of them who don't pay income taxes, that simply has the mentality that they are entitled to things and benefits from the Government. This is accomplished via the transfer of wealth from the taxpaying citizens to those who feel they are entitled. The real problem is that there are politicians that echo that entitlement mentality and legislate it.

[kellyb]

Who is "we"?

Half the country doesn't pay income taxes.

But they pay property taxes (directly or indirectly), sales taxes, SS tax, Medicare tax, etc. In fact, the taxes collected haven't been more regressive since 1950:


Source:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...ca-chart-graph

[Powerboss]

But they pay property taxes (directly or indirectly), sales taxes, SS tax, Medicare tax, etc. In fact, the taxes collected haven't been more regressive since 1950:
]

Indeed, they pay some taxes but the majority of taxes, however you slice, it are paid by those who get back the least. The larger point is that those that pay the least consume the most and instead of feeling entitled, demanding more they should be saying thanks to those, who they are demonizing, that are footing the lionshare of the bill.

[Malcolm Wright]

Indeed, they pay some taxes but the majority of taxes, however you slice, it are paid by those who get back the least. The larger point is that those that pay the least consume the most and instead of feeling entitled, demanding more they should be saying thanks to those, who they are demonizing, that are footing the lionshare of the bill.

Can you be a little bit more precise in your claim? Who are these hard-done by people, in your view, who pay the most taxes and get back the least?

M

[Freedom&Liberty]

The middle class and above.

[Powerboss]

Can you be a little bit more precise in your claim? Who are these hard-done by people, in your view, who pay the most taxes and get back the least?

Could you be a little bit more accurate in your quote?
When did I say these people were "hard-done by"?

[9ball8]

Actually, one of your examples IS an area in which the private sector competes with the government, and DOES give a better deal. Hint, UPS and FedEx. Keep in mind, we're talking better deal, not necessarily lower price.

Are you referring to better value in package deliveries? That's a good point. First class letter delivery, not such a good point. But you were the only moderate/conservative yet to respond to my post, so congratulations on being an open-minded conservative. My point still stands, especially when we look at other items on the gummint list. Example: do you pay $1 each way for a toll road? Dam fine road, if it's like the toll roads I've driven, and usually less traffic. But that road is way overpriced, in both real terms and value, compared to public roads. Very few people would like to pay $520 per year for one stretch of road; most individuals would balk at paying that share for all the roads in their area. Yet, that is what we pay for one privately maintained road, if we use it for a daily commute to work.

I believe that if we liberals start arguing the bottom line about choices, we can put some reality back into this "money burning" gummint argument. Conservatives would do well to jump right in and push back. We'd have spent a lot less on those parts of welfare that were (are) counterproductive, if conservatives had argued it was bad investment by the 3rd year of such programs. Just arguing we shouldn't give "something for nothing" fails, since that is exactly what many church-based charities do. That is only half an argument. Return on Investment (ROI) applied to gov't. is the other half.

[kellyb]

Indeed, they pay some taxes but the majority of taxes, however you slice, it are paid by those who get back the least. The larger point is that those that pay the least consume the most and instead of feeling entitled, demanding more they should be saying thanks to those, who they are demonizing, that are footing the lionshare of the bill.

Payroll tax (the tax on the working poor) is now about equal to income tax (a tax on the generally wealthier people) in terms of revenue. And extreme poverty (living on $2 a day or less) is up double what it was in the 90's.



If you want more people living on $2 a day or less to put more skin in the game, you're either ignorant or evil. NOBODY gets less back than the very poor.

[Powerboss]

Payroll tax (the tax on the working poor) is now about equal to income tax (a tax on the generally wealthier people) in terms of revenue. And extreme poverty (living on $2 a day or less) is up double what it was in the 90's.

Will you please clarify which taxes encompass "payroll tax" in your definition?

If you want more people living on $2 a day or less to put more skin in the game, you're either ignorant or evil.

What I want is a tax system that works for all. I support the fair tax and I also support Paul Ryans plan which reduces the tax system to 2 rates and gets rid of all the bullshit tax loopholes and exemptions.

NOBODY gets less back than the very poor.

In what respect? In terms of Government benefits, I have to disagree. They only way they wouldn't be getting them is if they aren't taking advantage of them.

[kellyb]

Will you please clarify which taxes encompass "payroll tax" in your definition?

Can you not just wiki it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

What I want is a tax system that works for all. I support the fair tax and I also support Paul Ryans plan which reduces the tax system to 2 rates and gets rid of all the bullshit tax loopholes and exemptions.

The Ryan plan is extremely regressive. It's a money-saver for millionaires and billionaires.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3728

[Zordar]

Flat tax with flat $5,000 personal exemption and minimum pay-in of $100.

Problem solved, assholes.

[kellyb]

Flat tax with flat $5,000 personal exemption and minimum pay-in of $100.

Problem solved, assholes.

A flat tax is regressive on the surface.
Why do you dislike progressive taxation?

[Zordar]

I didn't say I dislike progressive taxation.

Also, a flat tax coupled with one single personal exemption and flat minimum payment would be extremely simple... as well as effectively progressive. Under the system I outlined, if we had a flat 15% income tax, someone making $200k would pay $25k, someone making $60k would pay $4,000, and somebody making $20k would pay a measly $100! How's that regressive? And best of all, nobody gets something for nothing: the poorasites still have to pay something (the $100 would be mostly symbolic, but a reminder of NSTAFL), and there's no loopholes for the wealthy. either. The only outs/deferments available would be for major, provable hardship situations or full-on disasters.

Of course CPAs everywhere would riot at such a notion, but I think we could take them.

[Capricorn]

Why are conservatives so easily brain washed into thinking that liberals are like this. Too much listening to Rush Limbaugh and other nasty opinion leaders?

If you look at the statistics, people in blue states have higher income, are more educated and pay more taxes than their red state counterparts.
Then there is the conservative corporate nanny state...

[Malcolm Wright]

Could you be a little bit more accurate in your quote?
When did I say these people were "hard-done by"?

Sorry about that - I was under the impression that you felt this group was hard-done by?
I was not quoting you, merely paraphrasing you.
Was I wrong? Because if you don't think they're hard-done by, then I have to admit I don't know what your point is anymore. I thought you felt this group, which I am still waiting for you to define more precisely, was carrying an unfair burden.

M

[Chachma v'Oz]

Actually, one of your examples IS an area in which the private sector competes with the government, and DOES give a better deal. Hint, UPS and FedEx. Keep in mind, we're talking better deal, not necessarily lower price.

Better deal for whom? For business? Sure. Those delivery services cost more, but it's the customers who end up paying for it, not the shipper. Better for the individual? Hardly. Those delivery services don't pick up six days a week nor deliver seven days a week, don't delivery to every address between Guam and Main and cost more. The PS is a much better value for the individual mailer, and the other services are adequate for business needs.

[9ball8]

Hadit tried, which is more than I could say for most conservatives. Still no takers on drilling down on the "gummint business plan"? One would think that pro-business conservative politicians would have made mush out of the social safety net programs. But all they come up with is an objection to handouts based on principle, or some sort of moral hazard. It's an accounting problem applied to one or all gov't. programs. Each program has (or should have) a stated objective, unless we're talking about military adventures. This means that we can look at those objectives, then claim the money was well spent -or pissed away.

The very same can be done when comparing private, for-profit and gov't. sector services. Which ones provide the best value? No real money talk from the conservatives, when push comes to shove. If that is the case, perhaps lefties need to provide that comparison instead. Do away with the post office? Letter service is gonna cost the individual 65 cents, or $1.10 if we want the for-profits to deliver to our home. Just pulling numbers out of thin air, but what would they be if the analysis were done? -That is why conservatives would rather not go into that sort of detail.

[Powerboss]

Sorry about that - I was under the impression that you felt this group was hard-done by?

Why were you under that impression Malcolm? You shouldn't make assumptions such as that.

I was not quoting you, merely paraphrasing you.

How did I even imply they were hard done by?

Was I wrong?

Yes, Of course you were.

Because if you don't think they're hard-done by, then I have to admit I don't know what your point is anymore.

Then you should pay closer attention and actually read what I write rather than make foolish assumptions.

I thought you felt this group, which I am still waiting for you to define more precisely, was carrying an unfair burden.

Something is dreadfully wrong with the tax system when half of the people are paying no income tax. If you cannot see the pitfalls of such a structure then I suggest you stop posting and do some more research. The good news is that you did learn at least one thing today; Don't make foolish assumptions!

[Powerboss]

[QUOTE=kellyb;2270303]Can you not just wiki it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

If I'm reading that correctly you/they are counting what the employer is paying as well? Why?







[quote]The Ryan plan is extremely regressive. It's a money-saver for millionaires and billionaires.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3728

It's a money saver for everyone.
It seems logical that those paying the most would ultimately get the most in return, doesn't it?

I'll deal with this later. I'm tired and don't feel like doing this right now. Sorry.