• 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!

California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

How much is spent on CalWorks each year? Anybody know?

California would save $157 million in the general fund by cutting CalWORKs altogether, according to the County Welfare Directors Association. But the group warns that the state would lose some $620 million in federal funds for the program. Palmer put the projected federal loss much higher, at $3.7 billion.

Budget plan could doom CalWORKS aid to families, children - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee
 
Huh? So we should enact measures that increase criminal activity?
Why should a society pay people to not be criminals?
What lesson is learned by people who are paid to not be criminals?
Shouldnt they not be criminals under any condition?

What makes you think we don't do this in a variety of ways already, with the middle class and upper class?
The fact that you havent shown it to be true.

Furthermore, not all of the poor will go criminal should welfare end.
So, the effect of elimitating welfare, in terms of your argument of there being more crime, isn't as terrible as you suggested. Noted.
 
California has enough tax revenues, so the flat tax should be considered only as a means of more fairly distributing the tax burden onto the maggots who aren't paying it, the poor.

The problem California has is it's spending addiction. Eliminating welfare is a fine first step that's not going to happen, and it's only mentioned anywhere to stir up the apathetic parasites that didn't vote for the tax increases in the last special election.
 
California has enough tax revenues, so the flat tax should be considered only as a means of more fairly distributing the tax burden onto the maggots who aren't paying it, the poor.

So now the poor are "maggots"? The classlessness of some retards on this forum never ceases to amaze me.
 
Eliminating CalWORKS would be a shock to the system that would surpass even the Great Depression.

Assuming Los Angeles does not erupt in mass riots as a result, once that shock passes it could be the best thing to happen to California economically.

The flat tax is an outstanding concept--one I've been in favor of at the national level for years.

If these ideas become law, then kudos to California for not letting a good budget crisis go to waste.

No.

Look at it this way.

If California is the first to drop welfare, those parasites might get excited for a little while, provide some free entertainment on the news, and then they'd move to ummm...Tulsa.

Okies in reverse.


Sounds like a boon any which way you look at it.
 
So now the poor are "maggots"? The classlessness of some retards on this forum never ceases to amaze me.

Careful with the stones in your glass condo there :) I've seen some inflammatory and hyperbolic terminology out of you yourself :)
 
If it is not a swipe against the euro, then why mention it at all?

It was a statement of fact.

You're making the mistake of measuring a nation's economic strength by the amount of revenue the government rakes in.

That's strange.
 
How about California cuts services and increases all of its taxes in a non-progressive way?

Screw that. How about if California cuts services and taxes, which would grow the economy and then cut taxes again when things have improved.

That's a plan with legs, buddy.

Let the poor move to Massachussets.
 
A union doesn't need the government for them to work. Strikes, boycotts, closed shop action, it all doesn't require the government.

Oh, yeah?

Union goes on strike.

Management hires new workers.

Union goes off strike.

Without government goon interference, why should the management allow those strikers back into the shop?
 
Careful with the stones in your glass condo there :) I've seen some inflammatory and hyperbolic terminology out of you yourself :)

Like calling the poor "maggots"? Hardly.
 
What if everyone who was trained in air traffic control went on strike. Then the union could make any demands it wanted.

Am I wrong?

Yep, since PATCO did go on strike.

And Reagan did the right thing and fired their butts.

And the nation survived just handily.

PATCO didn't do so well.

Even something as specialized as ATC couldn't make a strike stick in the face of an employer determined to do the right thing.
 
They already tried this. It was an epic fail for the union.

The union apparently didn't have a large enough stake in the elligible worker pool, so they didn't deserve a raise.

However, Reagan acted too harshly by first blacklisting the workers. (but luckily he resinded that, which some terms)

I don't see how this relates to a union not being able to exist. If there is unemployed air traffic controllers then the wages should not raise for the people with jobs. That much is odvious, so this doesn't really mean that unions are inherently evil. :roll:

Why was it wrong to blacklist them, since they were practicing extortion?
 
Nice math but you totally miss the point as a good right winger. You are so focused on the "rich" that you fail to see the huge majority of the people are in the first 2 categories. So you are basically saying, screw the less well off as long as the super rich get their tax breaks because then they can maybe invest the money somewhere. Like it or not person 1 and 2 are what drive any economy. Person 3 can invest all his wealth but without the spending of person 1 and 2, person 3 will never achieve or expand on his or her wealth.

And I love your last comment.. may I ask where your compassion is for person 1 and 2 when they cant afford to buy food for their children or cloths for themselves? Person 3 can afford to pay that little extra in taxes, where as person 1 and 2 cant. Giving a tax break to the majority of people vs the very small minority is and always has been the best course, but listening to you only the rich matter. Great compassion there dude.


The "point" is that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution it's unconstitutional to unequally tax the individual.

They either pay the same tax, or they pay the same rate.

Taxing some more merely because they have more is a complete violation of the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection to all persons under the law.

Unless lying socialists have a different concept of "equal" than what's listed in the dictionaries.

Guess what? Compassion isn't a government mandate. You want compassion? Become a politically popular disease.

Socialists don't have compassion.
 
The entire state is affected by the situation, and to remove calWORKS completely would have a profound ripple effect throughout the state and the country.

That sounds like a good thing.

Lots of poor people like Ripple, too.

Oh, and guess what? It's not the job of the California legislature to worry about how their actions affect the "rest of the country". Nope, not at all.
 
So now the poor are "maggots"? The classlessness of some retards on this forum never ceases to amaze me.

You didn't know this? Maggots are grown from the eggs of flies laid in perfectly healthy flesh that then eat.
 
LOL you should stop listening to Forbes and his crew. Flat tax is a horrible idea and will only benefit the rich.. who funny enough are the ones proposing such idiotic policy. Do the math and you will understand how flat tax hurts the low wage earners much more than it does the multi millionaires proposing such policies.

Flat tax nations in Europe are the worst off at the moment. Their whole economy is at near collapse due to lack of funds and their growth has all but vanished due to the drying up of credit. Some of those very countries are talking up to a 25% drop in GDP because of the crisis.

As for completely eliminate welfare.. move to Somalia and see how that is. Countries without any safety net rank as some of the poorest and worst off on the planet. It is a egotists dream, and all are basicly ruled by the gun and the rich. Is that how you vision your country?

So according to your "logic", it is a bad idea to seek wisdom in financial matters from the people who actually know how wealth is generated, and have demonstrated skill in the process, when deciding how to fairly and effectively harvest some fraction of that wealth for parasitic government programs.

Under this model of thought, it would be the height of wisdom to seek guidance from an overweight alcoholic smoker with HIV and Herpes, and bad teeth when developing a personal health regimen, and to eschew input from a octogenarian marathon runner with the blood pressure of a teenage athlete.

OK, I see now.
 
Last edited:
That would be quite a ridiculous proposal. As I noted yesterday, it's merely so basic an economic concept as the diminishing rate of marginal utility that renders a flat tax necessarily unequal. As to the "elimination" of welfare, that would also eliminate the positive externalities generated by welfare (i.e. lower crime rates), and undercut the ability of the state to maintain the physical efficiency of the working class. That said, it would ultimately destabilize capitalism, so maybe I should be all for it. :rofl
 
Don't worry.

People smart enough to not be Democrats understand the concept of metaphor.

I'm not a democrat and I fail to see how it relates to the poor. Are you also saying that all democrats are less intelligent? I think you're just being a partisan hack at this point.
 
What poor person knocked you down, stole your wallet, and went running off into the night with it?

If he actually cared about the elimination of theft, he'd condemn capital accumulation through wage labor, as it relies on the unjust extraction of surplus labor in the production process and utilization in the circulation process to maintain a "vicious cycle" of sorts.

ed4a754f.png


But he can't be expected to care about anything so trivial as that! :lol:
 
If he actually cared about the elimination of theft, he'd condemn capital accumulation through wage labor, as it relies on the unjust extraction of surplus labor in the production process and utilization in the circulation process to maintain a "vicious cycle" of sorts.

ed4a754f.png


But he can't be expected to care about anything so trivial as that! :lol:

Well how can he when he's putting all that brain pow'r into thinking of creative names for the poor like "maggots". :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom