[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?

[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.tenaka2

This is true, unless the guy eats tv's he will starve pretty quick.

i dont even know what you are talking about.

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.

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.

[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.

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="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.

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="SoBaus"]

just got done playing my first few matches of free TF2.

might be the worst FPS ive ever played. Every class seems to get really imprecise weapons... Only the sniper gets an actual weapon that can be aimed... but even if you put your bullet between their eyes, they still seem to live.

TheOtherTheoG

i played plenty of quake and when i nail a rail gun shot, my target is usually dead... or almost dead if hes been stockpiling armor.

i didnt know the sniper needed to charge, ill try it again.. but the fundamentals of the mechanic isnt horribly impressive.

EDIT: nope still trash, game is garbage.

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?