Quote:Man, 40k between you and your wife and all 4 kids get private school? Impressive. My parents were going broke sending me to catholic school.
it's not a fancy private school about (about $1500 a year), and only 2 of them are in school. No way I'll send all 4 later on we will be forced to home school or I'll have to find a second job. The wife doesn't work her income would be next to nothing after paying for daycare. I work full time, on the weekends I've had a small cleaning business until recently I sold the accounts about 6 months ago.
Quote:Well good for you for living simply for the most part. Like I said, I support the idea of social welfare, so it doesn't offend me for you to be taking care of CHIP coverage. Of course at 33k per year you're still well above the "poverty level" and a lot of people subsist on much less, still.
It's not the programs Libertarians oppose, it's the bloated waste you get when it's distributed at the federal level. Reduce welfare to the states and you'll see a more efficient safety net. I got no problem helping people, I've needed the help in my life and I'm not ashamed to admit it, but if you make it to comfortable people are not motivated to make changes.
After 4+ pages I only got one answer to the question that I asked earlier, so I'll ask it again. Part of this topic is about "fair share".
The question is simple. How much out of every dollar that a person EARNS should that person have to pay to the federal government in the form of taxes? Again, it doesn't matter if the person makes 10k, 50k, 100k or more per year. How much out of each dollar earned would be a "fair share" in taxes?
Quote:Median income isn't a great statistic, it gets pulled up a lot by the top 1%.
50th percentile income is a better one. For a household that would be about 42,000 a year, or for two earners, two people working full time at about $10 an hour.
There are worse things than living on ~$40k/year, but that's the 50% percent mark. Half of all Americans are below that level.
I believe the median was $38,000, so its even less than your figure and still $8000 above other Euro countries.
Quote:Personally I think the nation needs a national minimum income for everyone and that welfare is a net positive for the economy, but I do find it ironic that you rail against the government and socialism and here we are with my income tax dollars paying for you to raise your 4 kids and buy your big screen TVs.
Now here's my question Oklahomie, earlier you eluded that Warren Buffet being a hypocrite did nothing to change the "truth" about his desire to see socialist policies passed, him calling for hire taxes while paying less.
If I was taking some sort of welfare home but advocated for less welfare why would you ridicule me for said hypocrisy? Is it not more noble that even someone who qualifies for welfare or even someone that is on welfare would still desire to see a system with less confiscation of wealth from those that have earned it, even though it may harm them in the short term?
Quote:After 4+ pages I only got one answer to the question that I asked earlier, so I'll ask it again. Part of this topic is about "fair share".
The question is simple. How much out of every dollar that a person EARNS should that person have to pay to the federal government in the form of taxes? Again, it doesn't matter if the person makes 10k, 50k, 100k or more per year. How much out of each dollar earned would be a "fair share" in taxes?
The fairest of taxes are consumption taxes.
The key word is "earnings." The worker has earned his pay, not the government, and therefore should see not a single dime confiscated up front by a government that didn't earn it.
Median US income as of 2013 is just over $51k, btw.
Quote:Lol you can talk when you move out of your parents. Get yourself a job at subway, buy your car, buy your house and start a family. It's easy here, right? Cause this is America.
You've described me so well.
Nobody said it's easy. Life isn't easy. I struggled when I first moved out working in the restaurant industry when the recession hit. I managed to survive on less than $10,000 a year for several years without public assistance. It required skipping some meals, but I never starved.
I sympathize for those who have low incomes, but I know it can be done. If I had children at the time I would have gotten a second job and would have been fine. As it was, I donated 30+ hours per week for 4 months per year coaching.
Quote:You've described me so well.
Nobody said it's easy. Life isn't easy. I struggled when I first moved out working in the restaurant industry when the recession hit. I managed to survive on less than $10,000 a year for several years without public assistance. It required skipping some meals, but I never starved.
I sympathize for those who have low incomes, but I know it can be done. If I had children at the time I would have gotten a second job and would have been fine. As it was, I donated 30+ hours per week for 4 months per year coaching.
Here's an article from today that I think can add to the discussion:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/the-1-may-be-richer-than-you-think-research-shows.html'>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/the-1-may-be-richer-than-you-think-research-shows.html</a>
Now, about 40% of the entire pie is going to just 1% of the ultra wealthy. They don't pay taxes hardly at all. You talk about capitalistic democracy when the facts indicate an oligarchy by definition. Money is power, after all, I think we can all agree on that.
I'm all for working hard, but I like working smart better. There are less stressful ways of going about living; other countries are allowing for it now. The "free market" needs--just like any market needs-- people with disposable income, i.e. a strong middle class, to spend their money. If almost half of all the available money is being swirled around Wall Street, benefitting a woefully small percentage of this country, then the economy is never going to come close to reaching its potential value for 99% of the people.
Quote:Here's an article from today that I think can add to the discussion:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/the-1-may-be-richer-than-you-think-research-shows.html'>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/the-1-may-be-richer-than-you-think-research-shows.html</a>
Now, about 40% of the entire pie is going to just 1% of the ultra wealthy. They don't pay taxes hardly at all. You talk about capitalistic democracy when the facts indicate an oligarchy by definition. Money is power, after all, I think we can all agree on that.
I'm all for working hard, but I like working smart better. There are less stressful ways of going about living; other countries are allowing for it now. The "free market" needs--just like any market needs-- people with disposable income, i.e. a strong middle class, to spend their money. If almost half of all the available money is being swirled around Wall Street, benefitting a woefully small percentage of this country, then the economy is never going to come close to reaching its potential value for 99% of the people.
I don't disagree with any of that there is a concentration of wealth at the top. It's the merger of big business and government that creates the problem.
Can't you see how removing the tax code as is and replacing with a simplified consumption tax would eliminate many of these loopholes?
Big business like Walmart are going to get smaller when they don't have to follow rules and regulations?
Derp.
Big business? No. However, small business will grow giving more competition. If you want to break up the power of the oligarchy, you need anti trust and foreign labor law reforms as well as outlawing corporate lobbying and PACs..
Quote:Here's an article from today that I think can add to the discussion:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/the-1-may-be-richer-than-you-think-research-shows.html'>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/the-1-may-be-richer-than-you-think-research-shows.html</a>
Now, about 40% of the entire pie is going to just 1% of the ultra wealthy. They don't pay taxes hardly at all. You talk about capitalistic democracy when the facts indicate an oligarchy by definition. Money is power, after all, I think we can all agree on that.
I'm all for working hard, but I like working smart better. There are less stressful ways of going about living; other countries are allowing for it now. The "free market" needs--just like any market needs-- people with disposable income, i.e. a strong middle class, to spend their money. If almost half of all the available money is being swirled around Wall Street, benefitting a woefully small percentage of this country, then the economy is never going to come close to reaching its potential value for 99% of the people.
Money is power if you allow it to be. Killing the super pacs and lobbying would go a long way. I have no idea why it's legal to buy politicians.
If the rich hardly at all pay taxes, then who does? It's certainly not the poor. The reality is that the rich pay almost all of the taxes, but catch grief for using loopholes that allows them to pay less. It's not the rich's responsibility to support the American government. It isn't anyone's responsibility.
We agree that power needs to be displaced, at least. I just view the federal government as having too much power in addition to big money.
Quote:It's not the programs Libertarians oppose, it's the bloated waste you get when it's distributed at the federal level. Reduce welfare to the states and you'll see a more efficient safety net. I got no problem helping people, I've needed the help in my life and I'm not ashamed to admit it, but if you make it to comfortable people are not motivated to make changes.
Bloated waste is re-implementing the same program 50 times instead of once.
As for your second point, I don't see how you could call the subsistence level of living that comes with poverty wages and food stamps comfortable, especially when the media constantly presses the excesses of upper income living in everyone's face.
Sanford and Son was a long time ago, now you get Modern Family where everyone lives in a mansion in California.
Quote:Money is power if you allow it to be. Killing the super pacs and lobbying would go a long way. I have no idea why it's legal to buy politicians.
Because the republican majority on the Supreme court said it is.
You want change you have to actually start voting for it.
Quote:I don't disagree with any of that there is a concentration of wealth at the top. It's the merger of big business and government that creates the problem.
Can't you see how removing the tax code as is and replacing with a simplified consumption tax would eliminate many of these loopholes?
Consumption tax is one big loophole.
Make your money here, spend it in countries without the tax, if you're rich, anyway. For people of more modest means, they get to pay the consumption tax on everything they buy.
Quote:Bloated waste is re-implementing the same program 50 times instead of once.
As for your second point, I don't see how you could call the subsistence level of living that comes with poverty wages and food stamps comfortable, especially when the media constantly presses the excesses of upper income living in everyone's face.
Sanford and Son was a long time ago, now you get Modern Family where everyone lives in a mansion in California.
come on, cell phones, home phone lines, cash assistance, housing assistance, health care subsidies, food stamps, and unemployment benefits all make it very comfortable to be complacent at the bottom. It's the ones that TRY and work out of poverty that get punished.
Quote:come on, cell phones, home phone lines, cash assistance, housing assistance, health care subsidies, food stamps, and unemployment benefits all make it very comfortable to be complacent at the bottom. It's the ones that TRY and work out of poverty that get punished.
Having the ability to make a phone call is what you call comfort?
Cash assistance doesn't come from the government on some unlimited basis, and unemployment benefits require prior employment, not to mention they aren't unlimited.
It's an ongoing problem that there's a perception that poor people have it too easy. Unless your idea is we should be grinding them and their children up to make soylent green then they definitely don't have it good or easy.
Everything about society is designed to punish and humiliate people for being poor (remember Rick Scott's welfare drug testing?), while what is needed is a level of respect for every person and a system that truly does try to give people a chance at a leg up.
Quote:Because the republican majority on the Supreme court said it is.
You want change you have to actually start voting for it.
As a matter of fact, I did vote for it last election.
Quote:As a matter of fact, I did vote for it last election.
That's good, however, to be clear, you won't find reprieve from the liberty of money equaling speech in the arms of the libertarians, either.
Quote:Having the ability to make a phone call is what you call comfort?
Cash assistance doesn't come from the government on some unlimited basis, and unemployment benefits require prior employment, not to mention they aren't unlimited.
It's an ongoing problem that there's a perception that poor people have it too easy. Unless your idea is we should be grinding them and their children up to make soylent green then they definitely don't have it good or easy.
Everything about society is designed to punish and humiliate people for being poor (remember Rick Scott's welfare drug testing?), while what is needed is a level of respect for every person and a system that truly does try to give people a chance at a leg up.
If you don't think entitlements aren't easily and rampantly abused then you're delusional. Odb showed how easy it was years ago on mtv. I've witnessed it many times over. If I lacked integrity and principle, I could get $6000-$10,000 in government funds right now by telling a little white lie that could never be disproved.