This topic is locked from further discussion.
The guy that has never worked a day in his life, but buys a new flatscreen for his mansion every year.
Or the person on welfare that can barely afford to feed their kids.
Both individuals have never worked a day in their life, but one is poor and one is rich... which individual is our taxpayer money better spent funding? which one creates more jobs?
The guy that has never worked a day in his life, but buys a new flatscreen for his mansion every year.
Or the person on welfare that can barely afford to feed their kids.
Both individuals have never worked a day in their life, but one is poor and one is rich... which individual is our taxpayer money better spent funding? which one creates more jobs?
SoBaus
For one, who's to say either has never worked a day in their lives? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone in society has truly live up to that exaggeration. Still, what's more believable, that a wealthy person who might have inherited their money and could simply be paying people to invest it has never worked a day in their life, or that someone with kids has never worked a day in their lives, meaning that he got a woman to sleep wth him when she knew he has never worked, she kept her baby and went through with the pregnancy knowing he has never worked, apparently stayed with him knowing he has never worked, and now he is legally responsible for their well-beng, meaning the mother, his parents, her parents, and possibly the government are knowingly leaving the children in his care, ALL knowing he has never worked a day in his life? I seriously doubt that anyone could care for their kids for any prolonged period having never worked a single day in their lives.
Two, most rich people are very smart with their money. They don't spend it, they invest it, and as such that money doesn't necessarily go to helping their community. Very often it leaves the community and even the country, whereas welfare money, even if spent frivolously, goes to creating local jobs.
Three, most people on welfare aren't on it because they don't want to work, they're on it because they can't find jobs. Their prospects are bad, they have little education, and there's plenty of competition for the few jobs that will take them. If you take away welfare that's not likely to change, not unless you start forcing business to create new employment opportunities for them. That TV, for instance, is more than likely manufactured overseas, meaning at most that purchase is helping to contribute to the shipping and sales end of the product, not the bulk of the price, and he's only doing it once a year with the majority still going to workers overseas. That person on welfare, if their money's being blown on liquor and lotto tickets as the stereotype goes, is still contributing near 100% of that money directly to jobs in their community, and even if that weren't the case they still probably wouldn't find work unless that money that the rich person spent is going to go to creating more employment prospects for the person on welfare, which is unlikely.
The people most detrimental to society are actually people with a high income who avoid/evade taxes. Morality aside, money went on welfare hardly competes for a fraction of tax avoided and evaded.GhoX
Think you are wrong.... a guy thats never worked or created a cent of value for our economy, but has a huge trust fund,, gets drunk and parties everynight at upscale clubs... he might blow $2000 in a night.
But hes a job creator... and the poor black person that uses welfare to buy $10 of baby formula... hes a leech on society and tax payers.
How can we get rid of these poor people that abuse the welfare system? And get more of these trust fund clubbing job creators that we need, more bush tax cuts seems reasonable, imo.
[QUOTE="GhoX"]The people most detrimental to society are actually people with a high income who avoid/evade taxes. Morality aside, money went on welfare hardly competes for a fraction of tax avoided and evaded.SoBaus
Think you are wrong.... a guy thats never worked or created a cent of value for our economy, but has a huge trust fund,, gets drunk and parties everynight at upscale clubs... he might blow $2000 in a night.
But hes a job creator... and the poor black person that uses welfare to buy $10 of baby formula... hes a leech on society and tax payers.
How can we get rid of these poor people that abuse the welfare system? And get more of these trust fund clubbing job creators that we need, more bush tax cuts seems reasonable, imo.
And why exactly is it a black man on welfare?
Clubs are usually exclusive in who they hire, not only do you have to have specific skills like strength or bartending skills, but you also have to fit a certain image in terms of your look. The person on welfare who buys $10 worth of baby formula is giving their money to an institution that has an open hiring policy, and they are probably doing it more often than the rich person. I don't think anyone goes out EVERY night and blows two grand, that's $730,000 a year, or in other words more than probably ninety-some percent of Americans make per year.
It's also not very good in the long run. If these people are living off of family wealth then they will presumably someday inherit that wealth, and if they are that bad with money then they could waste that wealth and end up creating huge job losses because they have no idea how to run the business that made them rich in the first place.
[QUOTE="SoBaus"]
The guy that has never worked a day in his life, but buys a new flatscreen for his mansion every year.
Or the person on welfare that can barely afford to feed their kids.
Both individuals have never worked a day in their life, but one is poor and one is rich... which individual is our taxpayer money better spent funding? which one creates more jobs?
theone86
For one, who's to say either has never worked a day in their lives? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone in society has truly live up to that exaggeration. Still, what's more believable, that a wealthy person who might have inherited their money and could simply be paying people to invest it has never worked a day in their life, or that someone with kids has never worked a day in their lives, meaning that he got a woman to sleep wth him when she knew he has never worked, she kept her baby and went through with the pregnancy knowing he has never worked, apparently stayed with him knowing he has never worked, and now he is legally responsible for their well-beng, meaning the mother, his parents, her parents, and possibly the government are knowingly leaving the children in his care, ALL knowing he has never worked a day in his life? I seriously doubt that anyone could care for their kids for any prolonged period having never worked a single day in their lives.
Two, most rich people are very smart with their money. They don't spend it, they invest it, and as such that money doesn't necessarily go to helping their community. Very often it leaves the community and even the country, whereas welfare money, even if spent frivolously, goes to creating local jobs.
Three, most people on welfare aren't on it because they don't want to work, they're on it because they can't find jobs. Their prospects are bad, they have little education, and there's plenty of competition for the few jobs that will take them. If you take away welfare that's not likely to change, not unless you start forcing business to create new employment opportunities for them. That TV, for instance, is more than likely manufactured overseas, meaning at most that purchase is helping to contribute to the shipping and sales end of the product, not the bulk of the price, and he's only doing it once a year with the majority still going to workers overseas. That person on welfare, if their money's being blown on liquor and lotto tickets as the stereotype goes, is still contributing near 100% of that money directly to jobs in their community, and even if that weren't the case they still probably wouldn't find work unless that money that the rich person spent is going to go to creating more employment prospects for the person on welfare, which is unlikely.
it may have been education in the past... but frankly, jobs dont exist anymore.
But we need revenues, do we tax the jobs creators that have a private maid and feed their dog's caviar? or do we tax the leeches on society that try to scrounge a few bucks to get their child immunizations. Its clear only one of them has the financial means to help our economy... and its the starving poor people. Those guys making 250k a year, cant pull us out of the recession (hey are suffering so bad).... would also hurt their job creating.
In an economic sense, the rich guy contributes to the economy through taxes and consumption of luxury goods. On the other hand, the poor guy is a burden on the economy as he is being handed money from the government so he can survive. In my country, i think something like 1-2 3rds of our federal budget goes to welfare costs so they are massive burden on an economy. angrules23
Yes, the main thing that rich peron contributes is taxes, and TC is arguing that we should reduce his taxes, making him less of a contributor than he already was.
Furthermore, if you decrease welfare thos people are not likely to suddenly find jobs AND they will now not be spending their welfare money meaning job prospects within the country go down and competition for jobs, which is why most people are on welfare int he first place, gets tighter.
In an economic sense, the rich guy contributes to the economy through taxes and consumption of luxury goods. On the other hand, the poor guy is a burden on the economy as he is being handed money from the government so he can survive. In my country, i think something like 1-2 3rds of our federal budget goes to welfare costs so they are massive burden on an economy. angrules23
If one of those poor people decided to steal food to stay alive (i think all of us would steal vs starve) how much would it cost to imprison him? would it cost more than to feed him?
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="SoBaus"]
The guy that has never worked a day in his life, but buys a new flatscreen for his mansion every year.
Or the person on welfare that can barely afford to feed their kids.
Both individuals have never worked a day in their life, but one is poor and one is rich... which individual is our taxpayer money better spent funding? which one creates more jobs?
SoBaus
For one, who's to say either has never worked a day in their lives? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone in society has truly live up to that exaggeration. Still, what's more believable, that a wealthy person who might have inherited their money and could simply be paying people to invest it has never worked a day in their life, or that someone with kids has never worked a day in their lives, meaning that he got a woman to sleep wth him when she knew he has never worked, she kept her baby and went through with the pregnancy knowing he has never worked, apparently stayed with him knowing he has never worked, and now he is legally responsible for their well-beng, meaning the mother, his parents, her parents, and possibly the government are knowingly leaving the children in his care, ALL knowing he has never worked a day in his life? I seriously doubt that anyone could care for their kids for any prolonged period having never worked a single day in their lives.
Two, most rich people are very smart with their money. They don't spend it, they invest it, and as such that money doesn't necessarily go to helping their community. Very often it leaves the community and even the country, whereas welfare money, even if spent frivolously, goes to creating local jobs.
Three, most people on welfare aren't on it because they don't want to work, they're on it because they can't find jobs. Their prospects are bad, they have little education, and there's plenty of competition for the few jobs that will take them. If you take away welfare that's not likely to change, not unless you start forcing business to create new employment opportunities for them. That TV, for instance, is more than likely manufactured overseas, meaning at most that purchase is helping to contribute to the shipping and sales end of the product, not the bulk of the price, and he's only doing it once a year with the majority still going to workers overseas. That person on welfare, if their money's being blown on liquor and lotto tickets as the stereotype goes, is still contributing near 100% of that money directly to jobs in their community, and even if that weren't the case they still probably wouldn't find work unless that money that the rich person spent is going to go to creating more employment prospects for the person on welfare, which is unlikely.
it may have been education in the past... but frankly, jobs dont exist anymore.
But we need revenues, do we tax the jobs creators that have a private maid and feed their dog's caviar? or do we tax the leeches on society that try to scrounge a few bucks to get their child immunizations. Its clear only one of them has the financial means to help our economy... and its the starving poor people. Those guys making 250k a year, cant pull us out of the recession (hey are suffering so bad).... would also hurt their job creating.
Ah, alright, you got me, good one. My sarcasm detector doesn't boot up until seven.
[QUOTE="SoBaus"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
For one, who's to say either has never worked a day in their lives? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone in society has truly live up to that exaggeration. Still, what's more believable, that a wealthy person who might have inherited their money and could simply be paying people to invest it has never worked a day in their life, or that someone with kids has never worked a day in their lives, meaning that he got a woman to sleep wth him when she knew he has never worked, she kept her baby and went through with the pregnancy knowing he has never worked, apparently stayed with him knowing he has never worked, and now he is legally responsible for their well-beng, meaning the mother, his parents, her parents, and possibly the government are knowingly leaving the children in his care, ALL knowing he has never worked a day in his life? I seriously doubt that anyone could care for their kids for any prolonged period having never worked a single day in their lives.
Two, most rich people are very smart with their money. They don't spend it, they invest it, and as such that money doesn't necessarily go to helping their community. Very often it leaves the community and even the country, whereas welfare money, even if spent frivolously, goes to creating local jobs.
Three, most people on welfare aren't on it because they don't want to work, they're on it because they can't find jobs. Their prospects are bad, they have little education, and there's plenty of competition for the few jobs that will take them. If you take away welfare that's not likely to change, not unless you start forcing business to create new employment opportunities for them. That TV, for instance, is more than likely manufactured overseas, meaning at most that purchase is helping to contribute to the shipping and sales end of the product, not the bulk of the price, and he's only doing it once a year with the majority still going to workers overseas. That person on welfare, if their money's being blown on liquor and lotto tickets as the stereotype goes, is still contributing near 100% of that money directly to jobs in their community, and even if that weren't the case they still probably wouldn't find work unless that money that the rich person spent is going to go to creating more employment prospects for the person on welfare, which is unlikely.
theone86
it may have been education in the past... but frankly, jobs dont exist anymore.
But we need revenues, do we tax the jobs creators that have a private maid and feed their dog's caviar? or do we tax the leeches on society that try to scrounge a few bucks to get their child immunizations. Its clear only one of them has the financial means to help our economy... and its the starving poor people. Those guys making 250k a year, cant pull us out of the recession (hey are suffering so bad).... would also hurt their job creating.
Ah, alright, you got me, good one. My sarcasm detector doesn't boot up until seven.
meh, im pretty sauced.. think i probably glossed over your points a few times. But it basically comes down to taxing a million bucks from a billionaire... or taxing a millione bucks from welfare people that can barely afford food. In tough economic times it seems reasonable to tax the richest, rather than the poorest. imo. If the general agenda is we should all sacrifice, why make the folks with the least means sacrifice.
Hell if i went bankrupt because the stock market crashed, i would like a bit of a safety net. Im sure Circuit City shares my sentiment. Why the hell would anyone give the most well to do people, the most financial gains. They are americans afterall... but if we ask rich americans to sacrifice its socialism. If we ask the poorest amerians to sacrifice thats just good economic policy.
Giving rich people tax breaks would make the economy worse and cutting off welfare would have dramatic social costs. Rich people save a larger % of their income because a mortgage repayment is nothing to someone earning $150,000+ but someone earning less than $20,000 a year is going to spend a greater portion of their income on essentials. So if you make it so rich people pay less in taxes it means a lower level of consumption in an economy, higher levels of savings, less tax revenue for the government reducing government spending leading to a contraction in the economy (where economic growth goes down). angrules23
what about the maid, butler, and landscaping sectors of the economy? give a rich guy 100k in tax breaks he may hire a landscaper... cuz hesa job creator. Give a poor guy 100k he will probably do his own landscaping... since he doesnt have those business instincts.
Wait wait wait. If the guy hasn't worked a day in his life then how is he paying for all of this? Inheritance? I think the example is too exaggerated, But for the sake of the example, I will answer. Perhaps against my morals, I would say that the rich person is the least detrimental to society because although he doesn't work, he contributes to the economy as a consumer buying luxury goods. The person on welfare however is taking the governements or taxpayers money and using it to fund there life. But the US Taxpayer is better off funding the person on welfare so they can get a job and contribute more to the economy than the rich person because they would be part of the national workforce. DeX2010
That welfare money goes towards job creation, it's just much smaller when compared to the amount of money spent by the rich person. And as I said, for one luxury goods do not necessarily create local jobs and two if their purchasing is as sporadic as in the example (one TV a year), then they spend far less frequently than people on welfare.
Wait wait wait. If the guy hasn't worked a day in his life then how is he paying for all of this? Inheritance? I think the example is too exaggerated, But for the sake of the example, I will answer. Perhaps against my morals, I would say that the rich person is the least detrimental to society because although he doesn't work, he contributes to the economy as a consumer buying luxury goods. The person on welfare however is taking the governements or taxpayers money and using it to fund there life. But the US Taxpayer is better off funding the person on welfare so they can get a job and contribute more to the economy than the rich person because they would be part of the national workforce. DeX2010
so you reject the notion of someone inheriting money? Sam waltons kid's, never worked a day.... but they are filthy billionaires.
Follows suit for most business tycoons. Hell look at Paris Hilton... wanna tell me the guy at the taco bell drive through is lazier than Paris Hilton?
Why is a billionaire thats never had a job, a better citizen than a poor person thats never had a job?The poor person consumes next to nothign in terms of goods ans services, whereas the rich person consumes 10 times as much in goods as services, despite contributing nothing to society.
[QUOTE="DeX2010"]Wait wait wait. If the guy hasn't worked a day in his life then how is he paying for all of this? Inheritance? I think the example is too exaggerated, But for the sake of the example, I will answer. Perhaps against my morals, I would say that the rich person is the least detrimental to society because although he doesn't work, he contributes to the economy as a consumer buying luxury goods. The person on welfare however is taking the governements or taxpayers money and using it to fund there life. But the US Taxpayer is better off funding the person on welfare so they can get a job and contribute more to the economy than the rich person because they would be part of the national workforce. SoBaus
so you reject the notion of someone inheriting money? Sam waltons kid's, never worked a day.... but they are filthy billionaires.
Follows suit for most business tycoons. Hell look at Paris Hilton... wanna tell me the guy at the taco bell drive through is lazier than Paris Hilton?
Why is a billionaire thats never had a job, a better citizen than a poor person thats never had a job?The poor person consumes next to nothign in terms of goods ans services, whereas the rich person consumes 10 times as much in goods as services, despite contributing nothing to society.
I'm sorry, I didn't make it that clear, I reject the notion that a person would only buy 1 item a year.[QUOTE="tenaka2"]
[QUOTE="DeX2010"]
I'm sorry, I didn't make it that clear, I reject the notion that a person would only buy 1 item a year.SoBaus
This is true, unless the guy eats tv's he will starve pretty quick.
i dont even know what you are talking about.
Tranvestites, obviously.
[QUOTE="GhoX"]The people most detrimental to society are actually people with a high income who avoid/evade taxes. Morality aside, money went on welfare hardly competes for a fraction of tax avoided and evaded.SoBaus
Think you are wrong.... a guy thats never worked or created a cent of value for our economy, but has a huge trust fund,, gets drunk and parties everynight at upscale clubs... he might blow $2000 in a night.
But hes a job creator... and the poor black person that uses welfare to buy $10 of baby formula... hes a leech on society and tax payers.
How can we get rid of these poor people that abuse the welfare system? And get more of these trust fund clubbing job creators that we need, more bush tax cuts seems reasonable, imo.
What does the welfare system have to do with someones trust fund?
[QUOTE="SoBaus"]
[QUOTE="GhoX"]The people most detrimental to society are actually people with a high income who avoid/evade taxes. Morality aside, money went on welfare hardly competes for a fraction of tax avoided and evaded.chaoscougar1
Think you are wrong.... a guy thats never worked or created a cent of value for our economy, but has a huge trust fund,, gets drunk and parties everynight at upscale clubs... he might blow $2000 in a night.
But hes a job creator... and the poor black person that uses welfare to buy $10 of baby formula... hes a leech on society and tax payers.
How can we get rid of these poor people that abuse the welfare system? And get more of these trust fund clubbing job creators that we need, more bush tax cuts seems reasonable, imo.
What does the welfare system have to do with someones trust fund?
both are undeserved wealth are they not?
I'd say the person onwelfare, because they are taking resources and not putting any back in. The rich man helps if he's not a miser. His spending and investments puts money into the economy. Giving the wealthy tax breaks is about encouraging them to spend more of the money they have. Which means most of the money they spend will go to the citizens which will be exchanges again and again meaning that money will be taxed MORE in the hands of the common peoplesimply because they keep buying and selling.
But the most interesting side is the people who work within government andlaunder our money. People like to ignore them and blame the welfare programs. So really the greed of man is the mostdetrimental to society.
I'd say the person onwelfare, because they are taking resources and not putting any back in. The rich man helps if he's not a miser. His spending and investments puts money into the economy. Giving the wealthy tax breaks is about encouraging them to spend more of the money they have. Which means most of the money they spend will go to the citizens which will be exchanges again and again meaning that money will be taxed MORE in the hands of the common peoplesimply because they keep buying and selling.
But the most interesting side is the people who work within government andlaunder our money. People like to ignore them and blame the welfare programs. So really the greed of man is the mostdetrimental to society.
MagnumPI
poor people can spend money as well as rich people... probably even better since they have limited funds, they will probably consider their expenditures more in depth. So they will consider costs and rewards free market entitities that perform better.
a rich person probably wont reward a company for providing the best value, but a poor person would.
[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]
[QUOTE="SoBaus"]
Think you are wrong.... a guy thats never worked or created a cent of value for our economy, but has a huge trust fund,, gets drunk and parties everynight at upscale clubs... he might blow $2000 in a night.
But hes a job creator... and the poor black person that uses welfare to buy $10 of baby formula... hes a leech on society and tax payers.
How can we get rid of these poor people that abuse the welfare system? And get more of these trust fund clubbing job creators that we need, more bush tax cuts seems reasonable, imo.
SoBaus
What does the welfare system have to do with someones trust fund?
both are undeserved wealth are they not?
:lol: hahahahahaha are you for real? 1- A trust fund has nothing to do with the welfare system, why this 'rich kid' even makes it into this discussion is beyond me 2- Who are you to decide who deserves their wealth? Their parents or grandparents worked extremely hard for it and they have the right to distribute it however they wish 3-How in gods name can you blakently call everyone on welfare "a leech on society". You have no idea of their current situation. And using a purchase of baby formula as an example is disgusting. Instead of choosing drugs or alcohol you think that the best example of how they are a leech is when they purchase baby formula for their child? Nice... 4-When they purchase things (anything) they contribute to the economy. Supply and demand is the foundation of the economy, they are the demand and they are contributing to the growth of the economy through spending[QUOTE="SoBaus"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]
What does the welfare system have to do with someones trust fund?
chaoscougar1
both are undeserved wealth are they not?
:lol: hahahahahaha are you for real? 1- A trust fund has nothing to do with the welfare system, why this 'rich kid' even makes it into this discussion is beyond me 2- Who are you to decide who deserves their wealth? Their parents or grandparents worked extremely hard for it and they have the right to distribute it however they wish 3-How in gods name can you blakently call everyone on welfare "a leech on society". You have no idea of their current situation. And using a purchase of baby formula as an example is disgusting. Instead of choosing drugs or alcohol you think that the best example of how they are a leech is when they purchase baby formula for their child? Nice... 4-When they purchase things (anything) they contribute to the economy. Supply and demand is the foundation of the economy, they are the demand and they are contributing to the growth of the economy through spendingGood philisophical question, who does deserve wealth? A welfare recipient doesnt, becase they have never worked a day in their life. But someone thats never worked a day in their life, but came out of a rich ballsack does though?
So success isnt about how smart you are or how hard you worked... its about which nutsack you oozed out of. Good slogan for america imo.
explains why american upward mobility has been tanking over the years.... cuz normal americans dont deserve success no matter how smart they are and how hard they work!
:lol: hahahahahaha are you for real? 1- A trust fund has nothing to do with the welfare system, why this 'rich kid' even makes it into this discussion is beyond me 2- Who are you to decide who deserves their wealth? Their parents or grandparents worked extremely hard for it and they have the right to distribute it however they wish 3-How in gods name can you blakently call everyone on welfare "a leech on society". You have no idea of their current situation. And using a purchase of baby formula as an example is disgusting. Instead of choosing drugs or alcohol you think that the best example of how they are a leech is when they purchase baby formula for their child? Nice... 4-When they purchase things (anything) they contribute to the economy. Supply and demand is the foundation of the economy, they are the demand and they are contributing to the growth of the economy through spending[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="SoBaus"]
both are undeserved wealth are they not?
SoBaus
Good philisophical question, who does deserve wealth? A welfare recipient doesnt, becase they have never worked a day in their life. But someone thats never worked a day in their life, but came out of a rich ballsack does though?
So success isnt about how smart you are or how hard you worked... its about which nutsack you oozed out of. Good slogan for america imo.
explains why american upward movility has been tanking over the years.... cuz normal americans dont deserve it!
I agree with you comrade, but the use of the word 'oozed' is just nasty.
[QUOTE="SoBaus"]
[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] :lol: hahahahahaha are you for real? 1- A trust fund has nothing to do with the welfare system, why this 'rich kid' even makes it into this discussion is beyond me 2- Who are you to decide who deserves their wealth? Their parents or grandparents worked extremely hard for it and they have the right to distribute it however they wish 3-How in gods name can you blakently call everyone on welfare "a leech on society". You have no idea of their current situation. And using a purchase of baby formula as an example is disgusting. Instead of choosing drugs or alcohol you think that the best example of how they are a leech is when they purchase baby formula for their child? Nice... 4-When they purchase things (anything) they contribute to the economy. Supply and demand is the foundation of the economy, they are the demand and they are contributing to the growth of the economy through spendingtenaka2
Good philisophical question, who does deserve wealth? A welfare recipient doesnt, becase they have never worked a day in their life. But someone thats never worked a day in their life, but came out of a rich ballsack does though?
So success isnt about how smart you are or how hard you worked... its about which nutsack you oozed out of. Good slogan for america imo.
explains why american upward movility has been tanking over the years.... cuz normal americans dont deserve it!
I agree with you comrade, but the use of the word 'oozed' is just nasty.
Good fallback, when you dont understand communism and socialism, just pretend they are the same thing as a democratic mixed economy.
Mathematician? whatever numbers lover. herp derp.
if you want to say something based on logic i would be happy to debate you.
[QUOTE="angrules23"]Giving rich people tax breaks would make the economy worse and cutting off welfare would have dramatic social costs. Rich people save a larger % of their income because a mortgage repayment is nothing to someone earning $150,000+ but someone earning less than $20,000 a year is going to spend a greater portion of their income on essentials. So if you make it so rich people pay less in taxes it means a lower level of consumption in an economy, higher levels of savings, less tax revenue for the government reducing government spending leading to a contraction in the economy (where economic growth goes down). SoBaus
what about the maid, butler, and landscaping sectors of the economy? give a rich guy 100k in tax breaks he may hire a landscaper... cuz hesa job creator. Give a poor guy 100k he will probably do his own landscaping... since he doesnt have those business instincts.
I'm going to stop now, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.[QUOTE="SoBaus"][QUOTE="angrules23"]Giving rich people tax breaks would make the economy worse and cutting off welfare would have dramatic social costs. Rich people save a larger % of their income because a mortgage repayment is nothing to someone earning $150,000+ but someone earning less than $20,000 a year is going to spend a greater portion of their income on essentials. So if you make it so rich people pay less in taxes it means a lower level of consumption in an economy, higher levels of savings, less tax revenue for the government reducing government spending leading to a contraction in the economy (where economic growth goes down). angrules23
what about the maid, butler, and landscaping sectors of the economy? give a rich guy 100k in tax breaks he may hire a landscaper... cuz hesa job creator. Give a poor guy 100k he will probably do his own landscaping... since he doesnt have those business instincts.
I'm going to stop now, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.yea no, i have a pretty good idea. Have taken several economics courses at the collegic level.
Poor people spend money as well as rich folk... in fact poor people spend money better, because they are less likely to spend money on foreign economies. Poor people are more likely to invest in our local economy.
Good fallback, when you dont understand communism and socialism, just pretend they are the same thing as a democratic mixed economy.
Mathematician? whatever numbers lover. herp derp.
if you want to say something based on logic i would be happy to debate you.
SoBaus
Culture is built upon what is passed down from previous generations, you may as well argue that its wrong to pass on genes to the next generation as it is to pass on physical items.
People often work hard in order to build something for their children, you would say this is not deserved?
[QUOTE="SoBaus"]
Good fallback, when you dont understand communism and socialism, just pretend they are the same thing as a democratic mixed economy.
Mathematician? whatever numbers lover. herp derp.
if you want to say something based on logic i would be happy to debate you.
tenaka2
Culture is built upon what is passed down from previous generations, you may as well argue that its wrong to pass on genes to the next generation as it is to pass on physical items.
People often work hard in order to build something for their children, you would say this is not deserved?
Probably not. In evolutionary terms, i pass on my genes because i can beat the crap out of your genes... not because somewhere down the line you had a rich uncle. If im bigger and stronger, my genes pass, not yours.
EDIT: personally i would stick to more ideology, gonna beat you on science and math at every turn. My opinions are heaviily backed by science and mathematical principles. You cant win on those fronts... unless you are a MIT grad or something....
So neither's producing anything, but one's hoarding capital which is very slowly being returned to circulation in the form of taxes and luxury expenses - is that about the sum of it? I don't have enough of a grip on economics to say which would be considered healthier for the economy.jimmyjammer69
you have a surprisingly good understanding. But one of the 2 categories... is less likely to invest their excess funds in foreign economies. I dont wanna spoil it, by telling you which one... but you seem to have a good understanding... so i think you will figure out which non contributing party is more likely to invest in foreign economies instead of local economies.
The guy that has never worked a day in his life, but buys a new flatscreen for his mansion every year.
Or the person on welfare that can barely afford to feed their kids.
Both individuals have never worked a day in their life, but one is poor and one is rich... which individual is our taxpayer money better spent funding? which one creates more jobs?
SoBaus
How is the rich guy funded by taxpayer money?
[QUOTE="SoBaus"]
The guy that has never worked a day in his life, but buys a new flatscreen for his mansion every year.
Or the person on welfare that can barely afford to feed their kids.
Both individuals have never worked a day in their life, but one is poor and one is rich... which individual is our taxpayer money better spent funding? which one creates more jobs?
SUD123456
How is the rich guy funded by taxpayer money?
tax cuts. Taxes have to be paid, if they arent being paid by the rich (the most able to pay) then they have to be paid by the middle cIass and poor. AKA trickle down.
Unless of course you think we dont need taxes, and somalia is a model country for the western world to follow.
:lol: hahahahahaha are you for real? 1- A trust fund has nothing to do with the welfare system, why this 'rich kid' even makes it into this discussion is beyond me 2- Who are you to decide who deserves their wealth? Their parents or grandparents worked extremely hard for it and they have the right to distribute it however they wish 3-How in gods name can you blakently call everyone on welfare "a leech on society". You have no idea of their current situation. And using a purchase of baby formula as an example is disgusting. Instead of choosing drugs or alcohol you think that the best example of how they are a leech is when they purchase baby formula for their child? Nice... 4-When they purchase things (anything) they contribute to the economy. Supply and demand is the foundation of the economy, they are the demand and they are contributing to the growth of the economy through spending[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="SoBaus"]
both are undeserved wealth are they not?
SoBaus
Good philisophical question, who does deserve wealth? A welfare recipient doesnt, becase they have never worked a day in their life. But someone thats never worked a day in their life, but came out of a rich ballsack does though?
So success isnt about how smart you are or how hard you worked... its about which nutsack you oozed out of. Good slogan for america imo.
explains why american upward mobility has been tanking over the years.... cuz normal americans dont deserve success no matter how smart they are and how hard they work!
I did not realise you were the single person who decided who deserves money and who does not, who has earned and who hasn't. My mistake :roll:
Your arguments are absolutely ridiculous, when did I or anyone else say success is about who your parents are? Well didn't the parents have to work hard for it? Also, believe it or not, there a couple of million people in the US and strangely enough they can be divided into more categories than "trust fund kid" and "person on welfare" :shock:
Your arguments are massive generalisations with no factual standing, do us all a favour and quit while you are behind.
[QUOTE="SUD123456"]
[QUOTE="SoBaus"]
The guy that has never worked a day in his life, but buys a new flatscreen for his mansion every year.
Or the person on welfare that can barely afford to feed their kids.
Both individuals have never worked a day in their life, but one is poor and one is rich... which individual is our taxpayer money better spent funding? which one creates more jobs?
SoBaus
How is the rich guy funded by taxpayer money?
tax cuts. Taxes have to be paid, if they arent being paid by the rich (the most able to pay) then they have to be paid by the middle cIass and poor. AKA trickle down.
:lol: So how again are they being funded? In case you do not understand the concept of funded, someone usually has to receive the money. Tax cuts =/= funding :lol:[QUOTE="SUD123456"]
[QUOTE="SoBaus"]
The guy that has never worked a day in his life, but buys a new flatscreen for his mansion every year.
Or the person on welfare that can barely afford to feed their kids.
Both individuals have never worked a day in their life, but one is poor and one is rich... which individual is our taxpayer money better spent funding? which one creates more jobs?
SoBaus
How is the rich guy funded by taxpayer money?
tax cuts. Taxes have to be paid, if they arent being paid by the rich (the most able to pay) then they have to be paid by the middle cIass and poor. AKA trickle down.
The rich guy has no income, because he has never worked a day in his life. Therefore, he pays no income tax at all. Moreover,being funded by taxpayer money implies a direct transfer from gov't to an individual.
[QUOTE="SoBaus"]
[QUOTE="SUD123456"]
How is the rich guy funded by taxpayer money?
SUD123456
tax cuts. Taxes have to be paid, if they arent being paid by the rich (the most able to pay) then they have to be paid by the middle cIass and poor. AKA trickle down.
The rich guy has no income, because he has never worked a day in his life. Therefore, he pays no income tax at all. Moreover,being funded by taxpayer money implies a direct transfer from gov't to an individual.
So incorrect, trust funds are not tax free. If you receive income from any sort of trust, it is taxed. I do not know the rates and how they vary from traditional income tax, but they are not tax free[QUOTE="SoBaus"]
[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] :lol: hahahahahaha are you for real? 1- A trust fund has nothing to do with the welfare system, why this 'rich kid' even makes it into this discussion is beyond me 2- Who are you to decide who deserves their wealth? Their parents or grandparents worked extremely hard for it and they have the right to distribute it however they wish 3-How in gods name can you blakently call everyone on welfare "a leech on society". You have no idea of their current situation. And using a purchase of baby formula as an example is disgusting. Instead of choosing drugs or alcohol you think that the best example of how they are a leech is when they purchase baby formula for their child? Nice... 4-When they purchase things (anything) they contribute to the economy. Supply and demand is the foundation of the economy, they are the demand and they are contributing to the growth of the economy through spendingchaoscougar1
Good philisophical question, who does deserve wealth? A welfare recipient doesnt, becase they have never worked a day in their life. But someone thats never worked a day in their life, but came out of a rich ballsack does though?
So success isnt about how smart you are or how hard you worked... its about which nutsack you oozed out of. Good slogan for america imo.
explains why american upward mobility has been tanking over the years.... cuz normal americans dont deserve success no matter how smart they are and how hard they work!
I did not realise you were the single person who decided who deserves money and who does not, who has earned and who hasn't. My mistake :roll:
Your arguments are absolutely ridiculous, when did I or anyone else say success is about who your parents are? Well didn't the parents have to work hard for it? Also, believe it or not, there a couple of million people in the US and strangely enough they can be divided into more categories than "trust fund kid" and "person on welfare" :shock:
Your arguments are massive generalisations with no factual standing, do us all a favour and quit while you are behind.
fine, lets do this. a progressive tax structure helps everyone by helping all the great entrepenuers with great business ideas build their businesses into to empires, like google, microsoft, and apple by giving them low tax rates during their formative stages.
The only reason to have a tax structure that rewards the rich, is because rich people are afraid to compete with up and comers in a free market system, because they are afraid they are smarter and harder workers. So they want to use government tax barriers to stifle competition.
[QUOTE="SUD123456"][QUOTE="SoBaus"]
tax cuts. Taxes have to be paid, if they arent being paid by the rich (the most able to pay) then they have to be paid by the middle cIass and poor. AKA trickle down.
chaoscougar1
The rich guy has no income, because he has never worked a day in his life. Therefore, he pays no income tax at all. Moreover,being funded by taxpayer money implies a direct transfer from gov't to an individual.
So incorrect, trust funds are not tax free. If you receive income from any sort of trust, it is taxed. I do not know the rates and how they vary from traditional income tax, but they are not tax freeNowhere in the scenario is there a mention of trust funds or any form of investment income at all. The only factor given is employment income.
[QUOTE="SUD123456"][QUOTE="SoBaus"]
tax cuts. Taxes have to be paid, if they arent being paid by the rich (the most able to pay) then they have to be paid by the middle cIass and poor. AKA trickle down.
chaoscougar1
The rich guy has no income, because he has never worked a day in his life. Therefore, he pays no income tax at all. Moreover,being funded by taxpayer money implies a direct transfer from gov't to an individual.
So incorrect, trust funds are not tax free. If you receive income from any sort of trust, it is taxed. I do not know the rates and how they vary from traditional income tax, but they are not tax freeyea rich guy has income because he has finance experts handle his money... hes not smarter, hes not harder working than your run of the mill welfare queen. And he has a much lower income tax than a hard blue collar working guy because hes taxed at the low low bargain basement luxury rate for capital gains.
any person on welfare would be so happy to get 10% of those investment returns... and would put in just as much work, which is none.
So incorrect, trust funds are not tax free. If you receive income from any sort of trust, it is taxed. I do not know the rates and how they vary from traditional income tax, but they are not tax free[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]
The rich guy has no income, because he has never worked a day in his life. Therefore, he pays no income tax at all. Moreover,being funded by taxpayer money implies a direct transfer from gov't to an individual.
SoBaus
yea rich guy has income because he has finance experts handle his money... hes not smarter, hes not harder working than your run of the mill welfare queen. And he has a much lower income tax than a hard blue collar working guy because hes taxed at the low low bargain basement luxury rate for capital gains.
Then as per my post above, you have to rewrite the original scenario as you provided only one variable which was employment income, of which the rich guy has none and therefore pays no income tax.
[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]
[QUOTE="SoBaus"]
Good philisophical question, who does deserve wealth? A welfare recipient doesnt, becase they have never worked a day in their life. But someone thats never worked a day in their life, but came out of a rich ballsack does though?
So success isnt about how smart you are or how hard you worked... its about which nutsack you oozed out of. Good slogan for america imo.
explains why american upward mobility has been tanking over the years.... cuz normal americans dont deserve success no matter how smart they are and how hard they work!
SoBaus
I did not realise you were the single person who decided who deserves money and who does not, who has earned and who hasn't. My mistake :roll:
Your arguments are absolutely ridiculous, when did I or anyone else say success is about who your parents are? Well didn't the parents have to work hard for it? Also, believe it or not, there a couple of million people in the US and strangely enough they can be divided into more categories than "trust fund kid" and "person on welfare" :shock:
Your arguments are massive generalisations with no factual standing, do us all a favour and quit while you are behind.
fine, lets do this. a progressive tax structure helps everyone by helping all the great entrepenuers with great business ideas build their businesses into to empires, like google, microsoft, and apple by giving them low tax rates during their formative stages.
The only reason to have a tax structure that rewards the rich, is because rich people are afraid to compete with up and comers in a free market system, because they are afraid they are smarter and harder workers. So they want to use government tax barriers to stifle competition.
hahahahahahahahah, omg, hahahahahaSo everyone who is rich now, was born rich? All their wealth was endowed to them? Give me a break, most of them have competed and they won, hence why they are currently wealthy. That is not the purpose of the progressive tax system at all, it is actually there to tax the higher income earners a greater amount while also not removing incentive to perform. Your arguments are way too flawed and I doubt you have any economic knowledge what so ever. I really don't want to burst your bubble either, but America (like most Western countries) is essentially a free market system :lol:
[QUOTE="SoBaus"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]
I did not realise you were the single person who decided who deserves money and who does not, who has earned and who hasn't. My mistake :roll:
Your arguments are absolutely ridiculous, when did I or anyone else say success is about who your parents are? Well didn't the parents have to work hard for it? Also, believe it or not, there a couple of million people in the US and strangely enough they can be divided into more categories than "trust fund kid" and "person on welfare" :shock:
Your arguments are massive generalisations with no factual standing, do us all a favour and quit while you are behind.
chaoscougar1
fine, lets do this. a progressive tax structure helps everyone by helping all the great entrepenuers with great business ideas build their businesses into to empires, like google, microsoft, and apple by giving them low tax rates during their formative stages.
The only reason to have a tax structure that rewards the rich, is because rich people are afraid to compete with up and comers in a free market system, because they are afraid they are smarter and harder workers. So they want to use government tax barriers to stifle competition.
hahahahahahahahah, omg, hahahahaha So everyone who is rich now, was born rich? All their wealth was endowed to them? Give me a break, most of them have competed and they won, hence why they are currently wealthy. That is not the purpose of the porgressive tax system at all, your arguments are way too flawed and I doubt you have any economic knowledge what so ever. I really don't want to burst your bubble either, but America is essentially a free market system :lol:You are missing the point entirely. A progressive tax structure, gives lower rates to up and comers... its helps small business get bigger. Big business doesnt like small business getting bigger because it may outperform them. And they may have to compete with them.. so big corporation want to stifle innovation.
ITs like if i was the toughest man in the world and made my living off my status, i would be against giving babies milk and nutrients because i dont wont those babies getting strong enough to fight me and challenge my status.
hahahahahahahahah, omg, hahahahaha So everyone who is rich now, was born rich? All their wealth was endowed to them? Give me a break, most of them have competed and they won, hence why they are currently wealthy. That is not the purpose of the porgressive tax system at all, your arguments are way too flawed and I doubt you have any economic knowledge what so ever. I really don't want to burst your bubble either, but America is essentially a free market system :lol:[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="SoBaus"]
fine, lets do this. a progressive tax structure helps everyone by helping all the great entrepenuers with great business ideas build their businesses into to empires, like google, microsoft, and apple by giving them low tax rates during their formative stages.
The only reason to have a tax structure that rewards the rich, is because rich people are afraid to compete with up and comers in a free market system, because they are afraid they are smarter and harder workers. So they want to use government tax barriers to stifle competition.
SoBaus
You are missing the point entirely. A progressive tax structure, gives lower rates to up and comers... its helps small business get bigger. Big business doesnt like small business getting bigger because it may outperform them. And they may have to compete with them.. so big corporation want to stifle innovation.
ITs like if i was against giving babies milk and nutrients because i dont wont those babies getting strong enough to fight me.
Ahhhh, once again, no. You cannot blanket the entire economy as a monopoly/oligopoly. It is industry specific. The five forces of competition also helps to weed out the companies aren't good enough to make it. You are talking like its impossible to start a new business and have it be successful; Google and Facebook did not start at their current size... You seem so hell bent on "blaming big business" that you can't see the flaw in your argument. Do some research, gain some knowledge and then come back to me. You said you wanted a free market, then you said you wanted big businesses to be regulated so they couldn't do anything about competition. Make up your mind, you can't have both[QUOTE="SoBaus"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] hahahahahahahahah, omg, hahahahaha So everyone who is rich now, was born rich? All their wealth was endowed to them? Give me a break, most of them have competed and they won, hence why they are currently wealthy. That is not the purpose of the porgressive tax system at all, your arguments are way too flawed and I doubt you have any economic knowledge what so ever. I really don't want to burst your bubble either, but America is essentially a free market system :lol:chaoscougar1
You are missing the point entirely. A progressive tax structure, gives lower rates to up and comers... its helps small business get bigger. Big business doesnt like small business getting bigger because it may outperform them. And they may have to compete with them.. so big corporation want to stifle innovation.
ITs like if i was against giving babies milk and nutrients because i dont wont those babies getting strong enough to fight me.
Ahhhh, once again, no. You cannot blanket the entire economy as a monopoly/oligopoly. It is industry specific. The five forces of competition also helps to weed out the companies aren't good enough to make it. You are talking like its impossible to start a new business and have it be successful; Google and Facebook did not start at their current size... You seem so hell bent on "blaming big business" that you can't see the flaw in your argument. Do some research, gain some knowledge and then come back to me. You said you wanted a free market, then you said you wanted big businesses to be regulated so they couldn't do anything about competition. Make up your mind, you can't have bothWhen a technological revolution comes around its the catalyst for new companies. Obviously internet comapnies can compete with other new internet companies... of which none existed prior.
Tell me though, in old industry... when was the last time you filled up your gas tank at a company less than 50 years old? Doesnt happen, because barriers to entry are the drug of industry. How many up and comers are there in the oil industry?
hahahahahahahahah, omg, hahahahaha So everyone who is rich now, was born rich? All their wealth was endowed to them? Give me a break, most of them have competed and they won, hence why they are currently wealthy. That is not the purpose of the porgressive tax system at all, your arguments are way too flawed and I doubt you have any economic knowledge what so ever. I really don't want to burst your bubble either, but America is essentially a free market system :lol:[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="SoBaus"]
fine, lets do this. a progressive tax structure helps everyone by helping all the great entrepenuers with great business ideas build their businesses into to empires, like google, microsoft, and apple by giving them low tax rates during their formative stages.
The only reason to have a tax structure that rewards the rich, is because rich people are afraid to compete with up and comers in a free market system, because they are afraid they are smarter and harder workers. So they want to use government tax barriers to stifle competition.
SoBaus
You are missing the point entirely. A progressive tax structure, gives lower rates to up and comers... its helps small business get bigger. Big business doesnt like small business getting bigger because it may outperform them. And they may have to compete with them.. so big corporation want to stifle innovation.
ITs like if i was the toughest man in the world and made my living off my status, i would be against giving babies milk and nutrients because i dont wont those babies getting strong enough to fight me and challenge my status.
In theory that argument can be made. In practical terms, not so much. In the US, the federal corporate tax rate is essentially flat after $335K of income.
Big business is far more concerned with other big business than it is with micro or small business. Of course, in theory big business is concerned about all competitors. From big business point of view, competitor threats and the relation to the tax system is essentially none though as it gets flat very quickly.
As far as innovation, the much greater fear is that a another big competitor will simply acquire the idea/technology/innovation of a small outfit. The incidence of small entities being bought by larger entities is orders of magnitude larger than small entities growing into large entities and competeing against entrenched players.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment