• 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!

Obama to call for middle class tax cut extension

Are you saying that you are more interested in what someone else has than in what you have yourself?


I am saying I should not pay a higher percentage of what I earn than someone who pays far far less actual tax dollars but uses more government services
 
what was the source?
Greg Mankiw's Blog: The Progressivity of Taxes and Transfers

To update one of the tables for the next edition of my favorite textbook, I have been looking at the new CBO report on the distribution of income and taxes. I found the following calculations, based on the numbers in the CBO's Table 7, illuminating.

Because transfer payments are, in effect, the opposite of taxes, it makes sense to look not just at taxes paid, but at taxes paid minus transfers received. For 2009, the most recent year available, here are taxes less transfers as a percentage of market income (income that households earned from their work and savings):

Bottom quintile: -301 percent
Second quintile: -42 percent
Middle quintile: -5 percent
Fourth quintile: 10 percent
Highest quintile: 22 percent

Top one percent: 28 percent

The negative 301 percent means that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives about $3 in transfer payments for every dollar earned.
 
Greg Mankiw's Blog: The Progressivity of Taxes and Transfers

To update one of the tables for the next edition of my favorite textbook, I have been looking at the new CBO report on the distribution of income and taxes. I found the following calculations, based on the numbers in the CBO's Table 7, illuminating.

Because transfer payments are, in effect, the opposite of taxes, it makes sense to look not just at taxes paid, but at taxes paid minus transfers received. For 2009, the most recent year available, here are taxes less transfers as a percentage of market income (income that households earned from their work and savings):

Bottom quintile: -301 percent
Second quintile: -42 percent
Middle quintile: -5 percent
Fourth quintile: 10 percent
Highest quintile: 22 percent

Top one percent: 28 percent

The negative 301 percent means that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives about $3 in transfer payments for every dollar earned.


When it gets peer reviewed let me know.

Psst BTW dude from the blog:

Update: A reader points out the CBO's transfer data includes state and local transfers, but the tax data includes only federal taxes. If state and local taxes were included, or if state and local transfers were excluded, the middle quintile might well turn positive, though the CBO does not provide the data to establish that conclusion definitively.
 
Last edited:
When it gets peer reviewed let me know.

Go to the IRS. They have published actual data on returns and the different level of income. The bottom pays way less %age wise than the top.
 
I rest my case :lamo

no i rest my case.

but if youd like to continue theres a certain section with no rules id be glad to point out your hypocrasy in.
 
the continued feeding of the poor does nothing for the country as a whole and merely creates more dependents by making failure comfortable.

such funding should cease to include anyone other than those truly disabled or unable to help themselves and the rich who fund most of the government should stop funding parasites and their advocates who use our tax dollars to take more and more from us



Are you saying you advocate a living wage for full time work as an alternative to welfare? I would agree with that.
 
Are you saying you advocate a living wage for full time work as an alternative to welfare? I would agree with that.

False dichotomy to have to choose between the two.
 
What are the humane alternatives to working for a living or welfare?

You and I don't have to decide what is "humane" as it concerns someone else whose life choices are up to him/her as to how to survive and thrive given his/her circumstances. There is no decision that we must make as to what options we present to this person. It's up to him/her how to get by and carve out a living somehow. The world has always been this way.

We could abolish the minimum wage altogether and guarantee nothing legislatively as to the pay a person will receive for his/her labor, and that would be fine, because you know what? That person is 100% free to decide what his/her labor is worth, and/or what exactly s/he is willing to do in exchange for $x.xx amount of money. No oversight needed. It's between the people trading the money for labor and labor for money.
 
Last edited:
You and I don't have to decide what is "humane" as it concerns someone else whose life choices are up to him/her as to how to survive and thrive given his/her circumstances. There is no decision that we must make as to what options we present to this person. It's up to him/her how to get by and carve out a living somehow. The world has always been this way.

We could abolish the minimum wage altogether and guarantee nothing legislatively as to the pay a person will receive for his/her labor, and that would be fine, because you know what? That person is 100% free to decide what his/her labor is worth, and/or what exactly s/he is willing to do in exchange for $x.xx amount of money. No oversight needed. It's between the people trading the money for labor and labor for money.

As moral people, with the goal of our Constitution to promote the welfare of we the people, we most certainly do have to do what is humane in regards to our fellow citizens.
And unless people are paid a living wage for full-time work, they have no option to escape state assistance. When we have more work with better pay, we have less people in need of assistance. This is not rocket science. You act like you have no knowledge of the history of labor laws in this country. Without labor laws, labor has always come up with the short end of the stick, as the management generally is most interested in their own bottom line, regardless of what it means for labor.
 
Last edited:
As moral people, with the goal of our Constitution to promote the welfare of we the people, we most certainly do have to do what is humane in regards to our fellow citizens.

The phrase goes "promote the General Welfare of the United States." It takes semantic flexibility if not acrobatics to interpret this to mean "provide for the general welfare of the citizens."

What is humane is to let free adults be free adults, who learn from their dumb decisions as they do from their smart ones. Success and failure are both necessary incentives to learn and grow. To shield them from negative consequences is to gradually numb them to the risks inherent in their decisions and actively promote their stupidity, not their welfare.

And unless people are paid a living wage for full-time work, they have no option to escape state assistance.

State assistance can disappear whether they have work or not.

When we have more work with better pay, we have less people in need of assistance.

When we create work out of nothing, and pay it more than it's worth, that IS assistance.

You act like you have no knowledge of the history of labor laws in this country. Without labor laws, labor has always come up with the short end of the stick, as the management generally is most interested in their own bottom line, regardless of what it means for labor.

You think laborers are any different? Laborers likewise are most interested in their own bottom lines, regardless of what it means for others. They want the most money they can get in exchange for their labor. They are self-interested, just like the managers, and just like everyone else. Every single person in the system wants to maximize his/her personal gain for his efforts. There is nothing wrong or unnatural about that.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying you advocate a living wage for full time work as an alternative to welfare? I would agree with that.

No, as an alternative to welfare, I support work farms and work camps where those who fall to far can work for their food and live in barracks. Wages are based upon skill and how easily you can be replaced as well as your contributions and time. Unskilled labor will always be plentiful and cheap, not to mention easily replaced in the near future with AI controlled robotics. If you choose to be poorly educated and not have a skill, well, I have not sympathy for you. Not only am I against a "living" wage for unskilled labor, I am against a minimum wage. Wages should be set by skill level and the abundance of people competing for employment at each skill level.
 
No, as an alternative to welfare, I support work farms and work camps where those who fall to far can work for their food and live in barracks.

Ironically, this is a pretty good life. Working your ass off to produce your own food and eating the healthiest food around despite being in poverty (income wise) is so healthy it is epiphanic. I would recommend everyone take a year or two off and go WWOOF somewhere. It's ridiculous how natural and healthy it is and feels. Will change your life forever. And in so doing, you'll be sticking it to the biotech GMO industrial agriculture complex. They hate when people rediscover their own ability to derive food from their environments. They want you to depend utterly on them.
 
No, as an alternative to welfare, I support work farms and work camps where those who fall to far can work for their food and live in barracks. Wages are based upon skill and how easily you can be replaced as well as your contributions and time. Unskilled labor will always be plentiful and cheap, not to mention easily replaced in the near future with AI controlled robotics. If you choose to be poorly educated and not have a skill, well, I have not sympathy for you. Not only am I against a "living" wage for unskilled labor, I am against a minimum wage. Wages should be set by skill level and the abundance of people competing for employment at each skill level.

There are not enough skilled jobs for your plan to work. If it were you wouldn't see skilled college educated people working at fast food restaurants. That helps explain why none of the candidates are espousing your views.
 
why do you make claims about stuff I didn't say? I said to cease to provide for those other than THOSE TRULY DISABLED OR UNABLE TO HELP THEMSELVES

and people like me give tons to charity

if the safety net was confined to those who need it, that would not generate enough votes for the dems
Let's disrupt the financial markets, put people out of work and eliminate jobs, then throw them under the bus to make sure they die. That's a good plan. :roll:
 
The phrase goes "promote the General Welfare of the United States." It takes semantic flexibility if not acrobatics to interpret this to mean "provide for the general welfare of the citizens."

The US a government, for the people, by the people. That is the way the supreme court has interpreted it. That is why SS and Medicare have been held to be Constitutional for decades without successful legal challenge.

What is humane is to let free adults be free adults, who learn from their dumb decisions as they do from their smart ones.

It was not their decision to have their job offshored, or to not be paid a living wage for their full time work. If you wish to continue to supplement employer's wages through welfare, go right ahead and I will support the candidate that offers people the choice to work for a living.

Success and failure are both necessary incentives to learn and grow. To shield them from negative consequences is to gradually numb them to the risks inherent in their decisions and actively promote their stupidity, not their welfare.

What you see as shielding from negative consequences, I see as humane assistance to those that are not allowed to work for a living.


State assistance can disappear whether they have work or not.

If they are working for a living, they do not need state assistance.


When we create work out of nothing, and pay it more than it's worth, that IS assistance.

Be realistic, who hires people because they don't have work that needs to be done? If you have a job that requires full time work, you should be willing to pay a living wage rather then making the rest of us subsidize your inadequate pay.


You think laborers are any different? Laborers likewise are most interested in their own bottom lines, regardless of what it means for others. They want the most money they can get in exchange for their labor.
They are self-interested, just like the managers, and just like everyone else. Every single person in the system wants to maximize his/her personal gain for his efforts. There is nothing wrong or unnatural about that.


And you think a wage that doesn't require state supplements to live, is too much for labor to ask for full time work, if they are capable of doing the required job?
 
Yeah, it's always 'tax the rich', never cut or control spending. :roll:
Don't lie - it's not "cut or control spending" it's "cut or control spending on welfare". You and I both know the Cons won't accept cuts in military spending, which is the other half of the budget. :roll:
 
Don't lie - it's not "cut or control spending" it's "cut or control spending on welfare". You and I both know the Cons won't accept cuts in military spending, which is the other half of the budget. :roll:

Indeed, Romney has pledged to increase spending on military, and give huge additional tax cuts to the wealthy? That's exactly how Reagan and Bush racked up record debt. Who would possibly fall for that again?
 
Because transfer payments are, in effect, the opposite of taxes, it makes sense to look not just at taxes paid, but at taxes paid minus transfers received. For 2009, the most recent year available, here are taxes less transfers as a percentage of market income (income that households earned from their work and savings):

Bottom quintile: -301 percent
Second quintile: -42 percent
Middle quintile: -5 percent
Fourth quintile: 10 percent
Highest quintile: 22 percent

Top one percent: 28 percent

The negative 301 percent means that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives about $3 in transfer payments for every dollar earned.
When it gets peer reviewed let me know.

Psst BTW dude from the blog:

Update: A reader points out the CBO's transfer data includes state and local transfers, but the tax data includes only federal taxes. If state and local taxes were included, or if state and local transfers were excluded, the middle quintile might well turn positive, though the CBO does not provide the data to establish that conclusion definitively.

Bottom quintile: 3.3% of all income
Second quintile: 8.5% of all income
Middle quintile: 14.6% of all income
Fourth quintile: 23.4% of all income
Highest quintile: 50.2% of all income

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf
 
Last edited:
You and I don't have to decide what is "humane" as it concerns someone else whose life choices are up to him/her as to how to survive and thrive given his/her circumstances. There is no decision that we must make as to what options we present to this person. It's up to him/her how to get by and carve out a living somehow. The world has always been this way.

We could abolish the minimum wage altogether and guarantee nothing legislatively as to the pay a person will receive for his/her labor, and that would be fine, because you know what? That person is 100% free to decide what his/her labor is worth, and/or what exactly s/he is willing to do in exchange for $x.xx amount of money. No oversight needed. It's between the people trading the money for labor and labor for money.
Sorry, that only works IF there's a viable alternative like living (farming, gathering, and/or hunting plus an option to build shelter) on public land - what was called 'the commons' by Locke and others - but that option isn't available in America. Try again.
 
Last edited:
Go to the IRS. They have published actual data on returns and the different level of income. The bottom pays way less %age wise than the top.


Yeah they don't want to ever really know the facts
 
Yeah they don't want to ever really know the facts
The shares of aggregate income declined for the lowest and second quintiles (from 3.4 percent to 3.3 percent, and from 8.6 percent to 8.5 percent, respectively), while the share increased for the fourth quintile (from 23.2 percent to 23.4 percent). The changes for the third and fifth quintiles were not statistically significant. In 2010, the share of aggregate income was 14.6 percent for the third quintile and 50.2 percent for the fifth quintile (Tables 3 and A-3). Households in the lowest quintile had incomes of $20,000 or less. Those in the second quintile had incomes of $20,001 to $38,043; those in the third quintile had incomes of $38,044 to $61,735; and those in the fourth quintile had incomes of $61,736 to $100,065. Households in the highest quintile had incomes of $100,066 or more.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf
 
too much government dependence-not enough individual initiative
Because if 10,000,000 Americans brought in each other's laundry we would solve our employment problem??? :lol:

Or maybe you think if every American had a HS diploma and at least a few hour of college then businesses would pay janitors and burger-flippers more money because they're better educated?!? :lol:

Sorry, it just isn't that simple - and you've been around long enough you should know it.
 
Last edited:
Don't lie - it's not "cut or control spending" it's "cut or control spending on welfare". You and I both know the Cons won't accept cuts in military spending, which is the other half of the budget. :roll:

I understand you want a society where government creates 'stay busy' work and pays far too much for people to do it. Sorry, that's not the job of government. However national defense is one of the jobs of government.
 
Back
Top Bottom