• 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!

Elimination of Poverty, the Re-establishment of the Middle Class

How To Eliminate Poverty, Re-establish the Middle-Class? Check all you agree with

  • Government funded higher education just as other industrialized nations do

    Votes: 28 68.3%
  • Cut out tax loopholes for the rich to benefit the lower and middle class

    Votes: 34 82.9%
  • Start disallowing outsourcing to other countries for lower wages

    Votes: 28 68.3%
  • Institute a flat tax

    Votes: 7 17.1%
  • Disallow those in poverty to have children

    Votes: 2 4.9%
  • This is not possible; we will always have poverty and no middle class

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • There should always be poverty

    Votes: 6 14.6%

  • Total voters
    41
Such bull. Conservatives would not spend a dime on public education of poor people, and education is the key for most to move out of being poor

Exactly, and I've seen no evidence by the majority of conservatives they comprehend that paradox.
 
I'm guessing the business involves some grandkids...the reason we live in 2 states is 2 sets of grandkids....
Nope, we don't reproduce rapidly. But, one is in the oven. Due Jan 2. Didn't think I'd be so happy about this if it happened, but I am.
 
How would implementing a flat tax eliminate poverty?
 
i'm trying to decide if you are deliberately being as stupid as you sound and this is your saddest, worst post ever; or if you are being ironic.

Ironic due to the stupidity of PatrickT

Liberals no more want to keep poor people poor then conservatives.

Both enact policies that negatively and positively assist the poor. Some conservatives want to get rid of any social assistance and let the poor fend for themselves (like many latin american countries, which does a wonderfull job of keeping people poor, sending them to the US boarder) Some liberals want to throw money at the poor thinking that might be the solution

But when I see such idiocy claiming liberals want the poor to remain poor it does piss me off. I can create posts that have just as much moronic bigotry as anyone, with just as much made up reasons
 
How would implementing a flat tax eliminate poverty?

who cares, it would eliminate the power dems get by pandering to people and telling them that irresponsible government spending used to buy votes will only have to be paid by "the rich"
 
Ironic due to the stupidity of PatrickT

Liberals no more want to keep poor people poor then conservatives.

Both enact policies that negatively and positively assist the poor. Some conservatives want to get rid of any social assistance and let the poor fend for themselves (like many latin american countries, which does a wonderfull job of keeping people poor, sending them to the US boarder) Some liberals want to throw money at the poor thinking that might be the solution

But when I see such idiocy claiming liberals want the poor to remain poor it does piss me off. I can create posts that have just as much moronic bigotry as anyone, with just as much made up reasons

why do people have a duty to fund the existence of people whose lot are in no way due to the fault of those who are so taxed?
 
How would implementing a flat tax eliminate poverty?

A flat tax would eliminate the need for the IRS which costs tax payers billions each year to fund. It would also eliminate the need for exemptions, loopholes, and other tax anomalies. It would be an easier tax code to enforce and would cost much less to enforce. And best of all, it is fair.
 
who cares,
Exactly it wont...
Thanks for proving my point.

it would eliminate the power dems get by pandering to people and telling them that irresponsible government spending used to buy votes will only have to be paid by "the rich"
God damnit. Its the same **** on every post from the TurtleDude...
 
A flat tax would eliminate the need for the IRS which costs tax payers billions each year to fund. It would also eliminate the need for exemptions, loopholes, and other tax anomalies. It would be an easier tax code to enforce and would cost much less to enforce. And best of all, it is fair.

You would still need the IRS to collect taxes...
 
1) Just because a relationship is same-sex doesn't mean it isn't "intact"

2) Is there any evidence to actually prove your point that a man you don't love is a better partner than a woman you do?

I didn't address same-sex relationships. You seem to have a major fixation on the subject.

I think they are a much smaller component than either heterosexual couples or single-mothers. I've also noticed that economically, same-sex couples make out like gangbusters by both working and not having children. Before you get your knickers in a twist I know some do have children. Most don't.

And, this is way off topic.
 
A flat tax would eliminate the need for the IRS which costs tax payers billions each year to fund.

That would depend on how its implemented. It would eliminate the need for the IRS if it were in the form of a universal excise tax.

It would also eliminate the need for exemptions, loopholes, and other tax anomalies.

As would a simplified progressive tax.

It would be an easier tax code to enforce and would cost much less to enforce. And best of all, it is fair.

Fairness in the tax code is rather subjective.

But, to answer DemSoc, I don't believe a flat tax eliminates poverty.
 
That would depend on how its implemented. It would eliminate the need for the IRS if it were in the form of a universal excise tax.



As would a simplified progressive tax.



Fairness in the tax code is rather subjective.

But, to answer DemSoc, I don't believe a flat tax eliminates poverty.

Nothing will ever eliminate poverty. But there are things we can do to encourage growth, and taxes aren't one of them.
 
why do people have a duty to fund the existence of people whose lot are in no way due to the fault of those who are so taxed?

It is a function of the society you live in. It promotes social stability and social mobility to a higher degree then funding prisons and having 1% of the population either in prison or on probation
k
 
A flat tax would eliminate the need for the IRS which costs tax payers billions each year to fund. It would also eliminate the need for exemptions, loopholes, and other tax anomalies. It would be an easier tax code to enforce and would cost much less to enforce. And best of all, it is fair.

The IRS would still exist. It would have to exist to ensure those that owe taxes pay taxes. It could be smaller but it would still exist. Any tax system would require people to administer it.
 
The IRS would still exist. It would have to exist to ensure those that owe taxes pay taxes. It could be smaller but it would still exist. Any tax system would require people to administer it.

I believe that could be done with a smaller agency instead of the IRS. I would scrap that all together-but I'm just dreaming. None of this will ever happen.
 
It is a function of the society you live in. It promotes social stability and social mobility to a higher degree then funding prisons and having 1% of the population either in prison or on probation
k

the war on poverty didn't decrease crime.
 
Nothing will ever eliminate poverty. But there are things we can do to encourage growth, and taxes aren't one of them.

That would depend on how its implemented. It would eliminate the need for the IRS if it were in the form of a universal excise tax.



As would a simplified progressive tax.



Fairness in the tax code is rather subjective.

But, to answer DemSoc, I don't believe a flat tax eliminates poverty.



Poverty in the US comes in two styles

Absolute, and relative

Absolute poverty would be the kind of poverty you would see in third world slums. This is extremely limited in the US. Seen in the homeless and perhaps some rural communties (mostly native)

Relative poverty is the type that most refer to when discussing poverty in the US (or most developed countries for that matter). Relative poverty still means a lifestyle far better then that of those living in absolute poverty. Relative poverty will never be eliminated due to the way poverty is calculated in most countries. Does that mean we should stop trying no, but it does mean that society should not provide income support for those who are buying Harley Davidison motorcyles ( Earned Income tax credit). It should mean that the home that those in poverty are living in are generally safe, have running water, access to the sewer system. In other words habitable. It should mean they wont be starving, or malnourished through a money to buy food (whether they have good eating habits or not is another matter). It means that their childern should have access to a good education, it means they and all people should have access to basic health care.
 
Poverty in the US comes in two styles

Absolute, and relative

Absolute poverty would be the kind of poverty you would see in third world slums. This is extremely limited in the US. Seen in the homeless and perhaps some rural communties (mostly native)

Relative poverty is the type that most refer to when discussing poverty in the US (or most developed countries for that matter). Relative poverty still means a lifestyle far better then that of those living in absolute poverty. Relative poverty will never be eliminated due to the way poverty is calculated in most countries. Does that mean we should stop trying no, but it does mean that society should not provide income support for those who are buying Harley Davidison motorcyles ( Earned Income tax credit). It should mean that the home that those in poverty are living in are generally safe, have running water, access to the sewer system. In other words habitable. It should mean they wont be starving, or malnourished through a money to buy food (whether they have good eating habits or not is another matter). It means that their childern should have access to a good education, it means they and all people should have access to basic health care.

And most of the poor in this country have all of that and more. I support food stamps, but I would limit what people can buy with them. I support public housing, but I would limit how long people can live in public housing. Some families have been there for generations and have no intention of moving out. I have no problem helping those who need it, but are also willing to help themselves. That being said, with the economy the way it is, and unemployment being so high, expecting people to get themselves out of poverty at this point is too high of an expectation for the most part. There is no such thing as a jobless recovery.
 
And most of the poor in this country have all of that and more. I support food stamps, but I would limit what people can buy with them. I support public housing, but I would limit how long people can live in public housing. Some families have been there for generations and have no intention of moving out. I have no problem helping those who need it, but are also willing to help themselves. That being said, with the economy the way it is, and unemployment being so high, expecting people to get themselves out of poverty at this point is too high of an expectation for the most part. There is no such thing as a jobless recovery.

I have no problem with programs such as workfare instead of welfare. Which requires those that are able bodied and or minded to work for the government assistance, or take training course for it.
 
Welfare Reform in the Clinton Era:

"The welfare "reform" of the Clinton era consists of two major elements: a revolutionary change in the basic goals set by the federal government; and a dramatic "devolution" of responsibility – turning what used to be a federal, centralized system over to the states.

Reflecting the new federal mission, welfare rules now:

Require most recipients to work within two years of receiving assistance,

Limit most assistance to five years total, and

Let states establish "family caps" to deny additional benefits to mothers for children born while the mothers are already on public assistance.
The devolution to the states is in some ways even more dramatic.


Traditionally, the federal government set eligibility guidelines on a national basis, then parceled out money to the states to fund specific programs at certain levels. But now, the federal money allocated for public assistance is sent to the states in block grants. The federal role is limited to setting goals, financial penalties and rewards.

States and even counties are designing their own programs for the poor, picking and choosing from approaches they hope will get results."

Washingtonpost.com: Welfare Special Report
 
Back
Top Bottom