• 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!

Do You Want Higher Taxes?

So your ideal situation would be to have our poorest citizens poorer ... like those of your beloved "south america, east asia or sub saharan africa" ... ? I am trying to understand what moral code would support poverty, no matter how severe, while only a handful of people own the world's wealth. Please give me a moral argument that would support that ... I've been waiting to hear one from you for a while now.

A moral code from the Turtledude? LOL! :sun
 
A quick technical note ... why do your (and some other people's) posts take up so much writing space on the forum, such as this one above which contains one 2 small quotes one line of content and around 9 or 10 blank lines? I am new to the forum so this may sound like a silly question, but my posts do not take up that much space. Am I missing something?

Some here seem to feel that having bigger spaces and numbering their personal opinions lends credibility to their posts in lieu of actual documentation to back them up. :sun
 
Some here seem to feel that having bigger spaces and numbering their personal opinions lends credibility to their posts in lieu of actual documentation to back them up. :sun

Like your personal opinions on the wealthy, rich and spreading the wealth around? Good point.
 
That has already been done and it is working, as demonstrated by the article that you posted. I have no idea where you're getting this idea that the social safety net is increasing dependency in the poor. If you have any facts that support your claim, I'd like to see them.

My OP (the link) describes how (to the best of my knowledge) the system encourages the poor to stay on certain government safety nets (not necessarily cash payouts) due to poorly chosen cut-offs (meaning at a specific point, welfare is cut-off, which is not O.K. since they are then not making enough to pay for all of their healthcare bills etc., it leaves them hanging thus discouraging them from making more money). This is my understanding of how it currently works, I outlined a scenario in my original post. If you have different information I would be grateful if you shared it with me.
 
Why are you turning on me sangha. The scenario I gave was an example of what I think is wrong with the system, not what I think is right. I don't like this disconnect we're having right now. perhaps I am not explaining myself clearly?

Turning? I've been 100% civil to you.

I'm just letting you know the facts. I agree that there is a disconnect, but that's because I just don't see how the facts you have posted support the conclusion you have drawn, and so I have asked you for more info. Isn't that the way it's supposed to be done?

So i'll repeat my point, if these people are working after having received welfare, as the article you linked to says, how is that a sign of increasing dependency when these people no longer depend on cash payments from the govt?
 
I am all for social safety nets .. however I think our current safety nets could be better, I am arguing for the same thing you are. What do I need to do to convince of it? What did I say wrong, jeez!!!!!

I agree that there is room for improvement. We have no quarrel on that point. However, I do object to your claim that the current welfare system is encouraging dependancy when the facts show the opposite. The fact that I disagree with you on one point does not mean that I am being hostile. Just honest
 
Like your personal opinions on the wealthy, rich and spreading the wealth around? Good point.

"The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/us-income-gap-rich-poor-stats-_n_779985.html

"It's even more revealing to compare the actual rates of increase of the salaries of CEOs and ordinary workers; from 1990 to 2005, CEOs' pay increased almost 300% (adjusted for inflation), while production workers gained a scant 4.3%. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage actually declined by 9.3%, when inflation is taken into account."
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

"Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton recently cited a Forbes magazine story that reported the combined net worth of the 400 richest Americans climbed 8% during the last year, while the rest of America has gotten poorer. Reich says, "only twice before in American history has so much been held by so few, and the gap between them and the great majority been a chasm--in the late 1920's and in the era of the robber barons in the l880's."
Will income inequality cause class warfare? | Psychology Today
 
My OP (the link) describes how (to the best of my knowledge) the system encourages the poor to stay on certain government safety nets (not necessarily cash payouts) due to poorly chosen cut-offs (meaning at a specific point, welfare is cut-off, which is not O.K. since they are then not making enough to pay for all of their healthcare bills etc., it leaves them hanging thus discouraging them from making more money). This is my understanding of how it currently works, I outlined a scenario in my original post. If you have different information I would be grateful if you shared it with me.

In that case, I have to apologize. When I first went back, I saw your link to an article that IMO argued against "encouraging dependency". I did not realize that you had posted two links. IOW, I missed the link to your OP, which I have now gone back and read. My bad

I happen to agree with the main thrust of that OP. There are disincentives in the welfare system that discourages welfare recipients from making slightly more money. I have no quarrel with your criticisms on that score, and I apologize if my confusion led you to believe that I was criticizing the OP. The only objection I have now, is not with your facts or your conclusion, but with the language of "dependency". When welfare recipients make decisions to maximize their income, as your OP describes, I don't see that as "encouraging dependency". I think it's a sign that these welfare recipients are developing the financial acumen necessary for survival in this economy. IMO, that's the opposite of dependency.

So basically, we have a difference in rhetoric, not values or positions. Again, my apologies for the confusion
 
"The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana."
U.S. Income Inequality: Top 1 Percent Take Home 24 Percent Of U.S. Income

"It's even more revealing to compare the actual rates of increase of the salaries of CEOs and ordinary workers; from 1990 to 2005, CEOs' pay increased almost 300% (adjusted for inflation), while production workers gained a scant 4.3%. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage actually declined by 9.3%, when inflation is taken into account."
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

"Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton recently cited a Forbes magazine story that reported the combined net worth of the 400 richest Americans climbed 8% during the last year, while the rest of America has gotten poorer. Reich says, "only twice before in American history has so much been held by so few, and the gap between them and the great majority been a chasm--in the late 1920's and in the era of the robber barons in the l880's."
Will income inequality cause class warfare? | Psychology Today

what was the answer of that article you cited? (I read it)
 
what was the answer of that article you cited? (I read it)

I cited 3 articles in the post. Which one did you read, and why only one of them? Did you have some numbered opinions you wanted to share about them?
 
I cited 3 articles in the post. Which one did you read, and why only one of them? Did you have some numbered opinions you wanted to share about them?

The last one-no clear answer
 
In that case, I have to apologize. When I first went back, I saw your link to an article that IMO argued against "encouraging dependency". I did not realize that you had posted two links. IOW, I missed the link to your OP, which I have now gone back and read. My bad

I happen to agree with the main thrust of that OP. There are disincentives in the welfare system that discourages welfare recipients from making slightly more money. I have no quarrel with your criticisms on that score, and I apologize if my confusion led you to believe that I was criticizing the OP. The only objection I have now, is not with your facts or your conclusion, but with the language of "dependency". When welfare recipients make decisions to maximize their income, as your OP describes, I don't see that as "encouraging dependency". I think it's a sign that these welfare recipients are developing the financial acumen necessary for survival in this economy. IMO, that's the opposite of dependency.

So basically, we have a difference in rhetoric, not values or positions. Again, my apologies for the confusion

No problem, lol! :) I apologize if I offended you in any way and I agree with you, recipients making more income is not encouraging them to stay on the system. It is the cut-offs that encourage recipients to stay on the system.
 
No problem, lol! :) I apologize if I offended you in any way and I agree with you, recipients making more income is not encouraging them to stay on the system. It is the cut-offs that encourage recipients to stay on the system.

No harm, no foul, no problem!

But I don't see how the cutoffs encourage them to stay on welfare, when welfare is limited to 5 years. It sounds more like low wages are keeping them on welfare. Again, that's not dependency.

Dependency is a rightwing myth that portrays the poor as not being willing to work and who prefer to remain on welfare. While you do point to problems with the way the safety net operates, I do not believe that "dependency' is the problem here. It's a more structural problem involving how govt agencies calculate the aid they will give combined with an economy that does not provide a living wage.

The problem isn't that the poor don't want to work; the problem is that system doesn't work. It is unfair to blame the poor for the problems created by the system, and the word "dependency" does blame the poor, and leaves the system blameless. Thats the reason why the rightwingers love to use the word. They like to blame the poor.
 
No harm, no foul, no problem!

But I don't see how the cutoffs encourage them to stay on welfare, when welfare is limited to 5 years. It sounds more like low wages are keeping them on welfare. Again, that's not dependency.

Dependency is a rightwing myth that portrays the poor as not being willing to work and who prefer to remain on welfare. While you do point to problems with the way the safety net operates, I do not believe that "dependency' is the problem here. It's a more structural problem involving how govt agencies calculate the aid they will give combined with an economy that does not provide a living wage.

The problem isn't that the poor don't want to work; the problem is that system doesn't work. It is unfair to blame the poor for the problems created by the system, and the word "dependency" does blame the poor, and leaves the system blameless. Thats the reason why the rightwingers love to use the word. They like to blame the poor.

nah i tend to blame rich liberal elites who create the system that keep people poor and dependent
 
you are lying again-they pay lots of taxes. they pay payroll taxes. they pay taxes on profits earned in other tax jurisdictions. They pay property taxes. and who cares. the people whom own them pay taxes on the income they derive from owning the corporation

WAIT a ding dong minute. Are you not one of the crowd who constantly whines and complains about FEDERAL INCOME TAXES as being so damn important? And now you have the unmitigated gall to offer payroll taxes up on the altar? And property taxes?

This is beyond ironic. The hypocrisy is thick as a brick.
 
WAIT a ding dong minute. Are you not one of the crowd who constantly whines and complains about FEDERAL INCOME TAXES as being so damn important? And now you have the unmitigated gall to offer payroll taxes up on the altar? And property taxes?

This is beyond ironic. The hypocrisy is thick as a brick.

speaking of thick I was just turning your and Catawba's claims back around

and corporations shouldn't pay taxes. people should on consumption
 
No harm, no foul, no problem!

But I don't see how the cutoffs encourage them to stay on welfare, when welfare is limited to 5 years. It sounds more like low wages are keeping them on welfare. Again, that's not dependency.

Dependency is a rightwing myth that portrays the poor as not being willing to work and who prefer to remain on welfare. While you do point to problems with the way the safety net operates, I do not believe that "dependency' is the problem here. It's a more structural problem involving how govt agencies calculate the aid they will give combined with an economy that does not provide a living wage.

The problem isn't that the poor don't want to work; the problem is that system doesn't work. It is unfair to blame the poor for the problems created by the system, and the word "dependency" does blame the poor, and leaves the system blameless. Thats the reason why the rightwingers love to use the word. They like to blame the poor.

I totally agree .. sorry if I used the word dependency, I didn't realize it held that kind of political significance and looking back .. if I did use it, it makes sense how it mythical. I totally agree that the problem is with the system and not the people. I am with you all the way on this :)
 
speaking of thick I was just turning your and Catawba's claims back around

and corporations shouldn't pay taxes. people should on consumption

Nice after the fact try in covering your butt however you still fail. Now you are back to a position where many pay no income taxes. So now for the serious explanation?
 
My job is to spread light and not to master

I get 375 an hour, would you care to retain my services and I will give you a written legal opinion?

Huh? What is your problem man. I thought debating was about considering others opinions and either agreeing or debating them? Perhaps I am mistaken?
 
Nice after the fact try in covering your butt however you still fail. Now you are back to a position where many pay no income taxes. So now for the serious explanation?

yawn everyone else understood the point
 
Huh? What is your problem man. I thought debating was about considering others opinions and either agreeing or debating them? Perhaps I am mistaken?

This board is entertainment for me. I do real debating where I get paid well to do it-in front of juries in federal courts or judges in federal appellate courts. This is amusement for me. I do what I want here and I love watching the implosion of those who take this place or themselves too seriously
 
This board is entertainment for me. I do real debating where I get paid well to do it-in front of juries in federal courts or judges in federal appellate courts. This is amusement for me. I do what I want here and I love watching the implosion of those who take this place or themselves too seriously

translation: okay, you are right... I do not debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom