• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

I cannot help it if you want to derail the direction I was taking the thread and you cannot understand what I was saying.

I don't use anything more than you do but I suspect I pay more taxes a month than you do in several years

I think you may have a control issue
derail the direction I was taking the thread
Maybe I have misinterpreted the whining you do at the thought that your tax dollars may help those less fortunate then you
the rich dems who are creating addiction to government handouts

I don't use the court house in my work, I don't use the legal system in my work, do you? My taxes and the taxes of every tax payer are used to create the facilities and the legal system you use in your work and then you cry about government spending.
 
Well, I was around then as well. ;)

Wouldn't they? It allows correction, which allows a second bite, which would make more people eligiable, and likely hide some issues.

Still, our problems are not just related to the 70's or the 80's. And every effort has been made to make sure people had access to credit, even if it is rento own, and real ripoff of the poorer folks in our country.

Yea this is really about why are some of the middle class moving down instead of staying at or moving up from middle class.
Credit over usage is but one of the problems.
 
I think you may have a control issue Maybe I have misinterpreted the whining you do at the thought that your tax dollars may help those less fortunate then you

I don't use the court house in my work, I don't use the legal system in my work, do you? My taxes and the taxes of every tax payer are used to create the facilities and the legal system you use in your work and then you cry about government spending.

I didn't ever attend a public school

I have never been arrested

I have never personally sued anyone

I have never needed the public to pay for an emergency room visit

I never needed publicly guaranteed or financed student loan

lawyers in my state pay several hundred dollars in registration fees. any suit we file requires a 450 dollar fee. many court cases are criminal in nature involving the prosecution of criminals for the benefit of all citizens.

I also pay more taxes than the salary of two federal judges. You use far more of the government than i do and pay far less for it
 
I didn't ever attend a public school

I have never been arrested

I have never personally sued anyone

I have never needed the public to pay for an emergency room visit

I never needed publicly guaranteed or financed student loan

lawyers in my state pay several hundred dollars in registration fees. any suit we file requires a 450 dollar fee. many court cases are criminal in nature involving the prosecution of criminals for the benefit of all citizens.

I also pay more taxes than the salary of two federal judges. You use far more of the government than i do and pay far less for it

Were you under the impression that filing fees pay for our judicial system? :lol:

Do you never tire of telling people how much money you (allegedly) make? I'd have thought they'd teach better manners at your finishing schools.
 
Were you under the impression that filing fees pay for our judicial system? :lol:

Do you never tire of telling people how much money you (allegedly) make? I'd have thought they'd teach better manners at your finishing schools.

I think someone else said that the system benefits him more than anything else.
I think he merely stated that it doesn't operate on, "push button, receive bacon" type principles and that there is a lot more to it, than is believed.
 
Lets examine some of these wealthy dems

Bill Clinton-until he left the presidency he never had a job that would make him a millionaire. If he had been just another lawyer in Arkansas, I doubt he would be worth the many millions he is today

Al Gore's father campaigned as the poor country school teacher. until he left the senate and became a Pawn of Armand Hammer, he never held a job that paid more than 85K a year yet he died a multimillionaire

How did the Kennedy family get its wealth? through Public office

Your post ignores the reality that GOP politicians also emerged from public service with fortunes. But tell me again about how your Great Satan FDR used his evil powers to make himself a fortune in government.
 
Your post ignores the reality that GOP politicians also emerged from public service with fortunes. But tell me again about how your Great Satan FDR used his evil powers to make himself a fortune in government.

FDR was born rich IIRC. why fixate on him when the History of our Nation is littered with rich dems whose mantra was whining about the plight of the poor as they used Public Office to gain massive wealth.

Do you know why I rag on the dems for this-the same reason why lefties rag on people like Newt, or Larry Craig's indiscretion. Bashing Barney Frank for allowing his boyfriend to use his apartment to run a chicken hawking ring is not as damning since Frank has never claimed to be a straight and narrow family man.

The GOP isn't the party that gains votes by pandering to the envious, the untalented or the unfortunate by pissing and moaning about the wealthy
 
FDR was born rich IIRC. why fixate on him when the History of our Nation is littered with rich dems whose mantra was whining about the plight of the poor as they used Public Office to gain massive wealth.

We agree lets get rid of all of the lobbyist and those that remain in public office will be there to serve the people who elected them

Do you know why I rag on the dems for this-the same reason why lefties rag on people like Newt, or Larry Craig's indiscretion.Bashing Barney Frank for allowing his boyfriend to use his apartment to run a chicken hawking ring is not as damning since Frank has never claimed to be a straight and narrow family man.

Making accusations with out providing a verifiable source speaks for itself, Personally I don't give two sh-ts about Newts indiscretions but chicken hawking is a crime regardless of who's involved or who you know so provide a source

The GOP isn't the party that gains votes by pandering to the envious, the untalented or the unfortunate by pissing and moaning about the wealthy

Your right the GOP shows little empathy for those in need and panders to those who have god given talent, have money, have the means to survive

I didn't ever attend a public school
So you were fortunate enough to be born into a circumstance where you were able to attend private schools

I have never been arrested
Poor you what a great educational opportunity you missed

I have never personally sued anyone
So what is your point?

I have never needed the public to pay for an emergency room visit
It's obvious that you have never needed to rely on any thing that those less fortunate needed to depend on for thier existance

I never needed publicly guaranteed or financed student loan
It's obvious that you have never needed to rely on any thing that those less fortunate needed to depend on for thier existance

lawyers in my state pay several hundred dollars in registration fees. any suit we file requires a 450 dollar fee. many court cases are criminal in nature involving the prosecution of criminals for the benefit of all citizens.
So it's okay to spend taxpayer dollars prosecuting people, but not okay if some one needs emergency room care or other basic essential need items, explain it to me so I can under stand it better

I also pay more taxes than the salary of two federal judges. You use far more of the government than i do and pay far less for it

You have no idea of what I do and don't do or what I pay or don't pay, the obvious difference between us is that you think you are superior to the majority of people and that it would not bother you to see sick and elderly people dying on the side walk. You have no empathy for those less fortunate then you, you are driven by your lust for the dollar and I am driven by my lust for life
 
..The GOP isn't the party that gains votes by pandering to the envious, the untalented or the unfortunate by pissing and moaning about the wealthy

no, the GOP is the party that gains votes by pandering to the whiny wealthy, those who inherited their great wealth without having to actually work for it, those who happily send tens of thousands of American jobs overseas (treason), and the greedy by pissing & moaning about the poor.
 
Think the role of the Federal government should be to "spread the wealth"...?

Absolutely! What is government but the administrative arm of a society. If a society deems economic change is necessary, the government is the one single institution with sufficient clout (size) and authority (it is the administrative arm of the people) to administer such change. Moreover, as the government had a substantial role in creating the disparity (cutting the highest marginal tax rates), it has the responsibility to fix it (by raising the marginal tax rate). Note the chart below which correlates changes in the highest marginal rate with wealth disparity.

We have created a pay me NOW (short-term focused) society largely through our tax policies. The bifurcation of the classes is the substantial result of lowering the highest marginal rates. Lowering this rate encouraged business owners to take capital out of their business rather than re-invest. The higher the marginal rate, the more government essentially subsidizes that investment and penalizes high salaries encouraging capital to stay with in the business. On the other hand, lower capital gains taxes (true capital gains rather than stock trades) coupled with higher income taxes work to greatly encourage the owner to look long-term for his/her economic reward.

With low marginal rates, it makes more sense for owners to move money from the risky venture to his bank account. It also encourages business owners to maximize profits by squeezing labor though 1) more outsourcing, 2) miniminal middle management and 2) more hours per employeees; each enabled by increasingly weakened unions. Business executives, who have more power in negotition, also insist on high salaries and bonuses as their taxes are low, rather than looking to longer-term payouts, which would better align them with the long-term interest of the business (and our economy)ceo pay.jpgwealthgapchart1.jpg

Short answer: raise the highest marginal rates (including the definition of the highest brackets) about 50% and this gets fixed.
 
Last edited:
Short answer: raise the highest marginal rates (including the definition of the highest brackets) about 50% and this gets fixed.

The gap would be much smaller if the government hadn't decided to reinflate the markets. I hate the arguement that the entity that broke something is the answer to fixing it.
 
Yea this is really about why are some of the middle class moving down instead of staying at or moving up from middle class.
Credit over usage is but one of the problems.

On this I think we agree.

I will only say we need a strong middle. We don't have one at the moment, or at least not as strong as we should want.
 
Your examples showed it did. Every state outside of one had a lower unemployment rate than those with higher taxes. :shrug:

I'm a little confused, there's no chart in that article, and I don't remeber seeing a link from you? Did I miss one or the other?

Also, the reason I linked several other articles instead of just thatn one is because that alone, for either of us, would not show causation. If I had said, that only reason we know that tax cuts jobs is because of the difference in umemployment by states, you'd have a point if what you say is true. But that is not what I said, or the only evidence I gave. Does this not make sense to you?
 
I'm a little confused, there's no chart in that article, and I don't remeber seeing a link from you? Did I miss one or the other?

Also, the reason I linked several other articles instead of just thatn one is because that alone, for either of us, would not show causation. If I had said, that only reason we know that tax cuts jobs is because of the difference in umemployment by states, you'd have a point if what you say is true. But that is not what I said, or the only evidence I gave. Does this not make sense to you?

Yes, you made an arguement and it wasn't true based upon the examples used. You then wanted me to look at other arguements. I'm not going to research them all once the first one was so mistaken.

Like Obama, you had one shot.
 
Yes, you made an arguement and it wasn't true based upon the examples used. You then wanted me to look at other arguements. I'm not going to research them all once the first one was so mistaken.

Like Obama, you had one shot.

No, it was not based on those examples. I cannot figure out why you think one example used in one of several articles is what the argument is based on? It isn't. You keep going back to one example in one article, and i keep pointing to the other articles, and asking you read more. I specifically told you I merely link the first few such articles. And then the next few. And so on. The effort was to show the overwhelming amount of material on this topic. Not to make one examplein one article the basis of the argument. That would be silly.

And you still haven't shown me the chart.
 
The gap would be much smaller if the government hadn't decided to reinflate the markets. I hate the arguement that the entity that broke something is the answer to fixing it.

I am not following... what do you mean "re-inflate" the markets? What did the government do, when and how does it contribute to the gap?
 
I am not following... what do you mean "re-inflate" the markets? What did the government do, when and how does it contribute to the gap?

Additional I'd like to add the question as to when this occurred.
 
No, it was not based on those examples. I cannot figure out why you think one example used in one of several articles is what the argument is based on? It isn't. You keep going back to one example in one article, and i keep pointing to the other articles, and asking you read more. I specifically told you I merely link the first few such articles. And then the next few. And so on. The effort was to show the overwhelming amount of material on this topic. Not to make one examplein one article the basis of the argument. That would be silly.

And you still haven't shown me the chart.

Seems you often times do this. You get confused but it would seem you refuse to go back and read what was discussed. You listed states with low tax rates and with high tax rates. The arguement was that those with low tax rates were not creating jobs because Florida (in the low rate) was about the same as Illinois (in the high rate) but when you looked at the rest of the states, every one of the low tax rate states had lower unemployment than the higher tax rate states.

No, I have no desire to look at article after article until one can be found to suit your arguement.
 
I am not following... what do you mean "re-inflate" the markets? What did the government do, when and how does it contribute to the gap?

QE-1 and 2.
 
I haven't heard anyone argue that they want a society where one can't win. In fact, while you may fond someone, that number is about as smaller as those who win. It is bad form to misrepresent the argument. Someone noted earliy that it was not about everyone being equal, but about equity, a very different word. So, you wrote a lot up there that has nothing to with what hardly anyone is arguing and nothing at all addressing what I have said. How should I respond to that?

Boo you seem to talk about "winners" and "losers" like there is a set number, a limited number. The wonderful thing about this country is there is nothing holding anyone back from being successful. Look at the founder of Wendys, he didn't even graduate from high school. There can only be so many winners, but, nothing is stopping YOU from being one.

Sounds to me like you're jealous of other people's wealth. In fact, you definitely are.

I just purchased a very modest little house, I drive 14 and 15 year old vehicles, I make about 30,000 a year and I consider myself one hell of a winner considering what I've been through and what I know some other people my age are making right now. Labeling oneself a "winner" or "loser" is too this or that, black or white.

You might not consider me a winner, but I'm perfectly happy right now. I'm not rich by any means, but when I go grocery shopping I have no problems buying what I need to eat. I'm not made of money and I purchase things as cheaply as I can, but I am content with what I have, I don't feel I need "more money" to feel like a winner.

Like someone told me one time, "Some of the richest people I know don't have a dime to their name."
 
Last edited:
Boo you seem to talk about "winners" and "losers" like there is a set number, a limited number. The wonderful thing about this country is there is nothing holding anyone back from being successful. Look at the founder of Wendys, he didn't even graduate from high school. There can only be so many winners, but, nothing is stopping YOU from being one.

Sounds to me like you're jealous of other people's wealth. In fact, you definitely are.

I just purchased a very modest little house, I drive 14 and 15 year old vehicles, I make about 30,000 a year and I consider myself one hell of a winner considering what I've been through and what I know some other people my age are making right now. Labeling oneself a "winner" or "loser" is too this or that, black or white.

You might not consider me a winner, but I'm perfectly happy right now. I'm not rich by any means, but when I go grocery shopping I have no problems buying what I need to eat. I'm not made of money and I purchase things as cheaply as I can, but I am content with what I have, I don't feel I need "more money" to feel like a winner.

Like someone told me one time, "Some of the richest people I know don't have a dime to their name."
????

No, but any game only has one winner. A game where everyone is a winner isn't really a competition, is it?

Not jealous at all as I'm doing fine. You too shouldn't try to read into the comments of others or make leaps, as you not really good at it either.

The rest of post is neither any thing I disagree with or addresses anything I've said. :coffeepap
 
Seems you often times do this. You get confused but it would seem you refuse to go back and read what was discussed. You listed states with low tax rates and with high tax rates. The arguement was that those with low tax rates were not creating jobs because Florida (in the low rate) was about the same as Illinois (in the high rate) but when you looked at the rest of the states, every one of the low tax rate states had lower unemployment than the higher tax rate states.

No, I have no desire to look at article after article until one can be found to suit your arguement.

No, I've gone back. I think you are confused. I said tax cuts do not create jobs. I said there is no evidence that it does. I listed the first few links on a search, to which you immediately focused on one example in one article. I said, look at the other articles, and gave you a few more. You failed to and continued a very limited focus, ignoring the other articles. I have asked why and for the chart you refer to. You answer neither, and continue to focus on the one single example in one article. I'm lost as to why, and have been repeating this for some time.
 
Here are some of the year's big winners:

1. William R. Johnson, Chairman and President, H.J. Heinz. Bonus: $8,589,063, up 17.6 percent.

Top CEO Bonuses of 2010: Heinz, Oracle, Cisco, Nike and Rupert Murdoch of NewsCorp. - ABC News

2011 Executive PayWatch





China controls their economy. To have more control, we would have to be more like China. Not sure we want that.




We've linked before what business does with tax cuts.

Summation:

Although we would expect tax cuts to bolster the economy, empirical evidence shows that they typically don't. Tax cuts to the rich are more likely to promote investment bubbles than job creation. Tax incentives to corporations frequently promote job destroying choices, or simply become handouts to the executives and the investors.
why tax cuts don't create jobs

Florida has the fifth lowest corporate income tax rate in the country at 5.5 percent, trailing only South Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming and Nevada — states hardly in Florida's league. Yet Florida's unemployment rate remains far higher than the 9.1 percent national average. Recently, both a Tax Foundation study and University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith have argued that reducing taxes has no discernible impact on job growth.

It's not hard to find evidence to support such a view. Other states with much higher corporate tax rates — Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey — all enjoy significantly lower jobless numbers, as well as hosting the corporate headquarters of many more Fortune 500 companies per capita.

Tax cuts don't create jobs - Tampa Bay Times

I usually just give the first two or three, but tohers have been posted. What can be done, and what is done are two different things.





They are that,. but not uncommon as to what is done with our appeasment of business.

And while I agree with you that one may be worse than the other, we curently do both. And when you lower their taxes, which largely doesn't amount to enough to actually make a major difference even if used, you have to have some evidence that they actually hire people. That evidence doesn't really exist. The evidence is all over the board, and u=suggests that other factors, not taxes, play a far larger role.



That's right. Without taking control, government can do very little. And I suspect neither one of us wants the government taking control.

I started linking for you on post #159 1Perry. I noted before that I have linked many things on this over time. Later I give you more, and later more, and later some more. I do not limit my argument to the one article.
 
I started linking for you on post #159 1Perry. I noted before that I have linked many things on this over time. Later I give you more, and later more, and later some more. I do not limit my argument to the one article.

Your arguement.

Florida has the fifth lowest corporate income tax rate in the country at 5.5 percent, trailing only South Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming and Nevada — states hardly in Florida's league. Yet Florida's unemployment rate remains far higher than the 9.1 percent national average. Recently, both a Tax Foundation study and University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith have argued that reducing taxes has no discernible impact on job growth.


It's not hard to find evidence to support such a view. Other states with much higher corporate tax rates — Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey — all enjoy significantly lower jobless numbers, as well as hosting the corporate headquarters of many more Fortune 500 companies per capita.


Do the numbers actually support this position?
 
On this I think we agree.

I will only say we need a strong middle. We don't have one at the moment, or at least not as strong as we should want.

I don't think the numbers on classes are going to be accurate for a while.
With a large part of our population moving into retirement, there are going to be income fluctuations, based on the fact that they may be liquidating their assets, which can skew the numbers in a couple of directions.
 
Back
Top Bottom