Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You could not be more wrong. That kid, by about the time he is twelve he can pick up on your "lowlife" viewpoint. How do you think that makes him feel? You have already condemned him to a life of failure. I don't know how much you know about "life", but it is true, you can create your own reality.
Dude, the sterilization you are proposing has a name. It is called EUGENICS. Now you believe the government should have the ability to decide who can procreate and who can't. How can you align that with the viewpoint that the government screws up everything it touches. Total cognitive dissonance. Makes no damn sense. If the government can decide who can procreate and who can't, who can enter the country and who can't, then the government gets to pick and choose it's citizens. It is a recipe for disaster.
I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts. One's success should not be based on their luck in the womb lottery. It should be dependent upon their hard work and dedication. The place of the government is to make sure those born to "lowlifes" have the same opportunities as those born into wealth.
With such a belief, we will always have lowlifes because we reward the procreation of them.
In most cases, a wealthy person will end up with wealthy children. An upper class family will usually end up with upper-class children. Middle-class people usually end up with middle-class children. There is nothing exceptional about the poor. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
In essence, what we are doing is paying poor people to produce more poor people. How is that any winning strategy? Wouldn't it make more sense to pay the middle-class or the wealthy to have more middle-class and wealthy children?
Eugenics? I never said government should tell people who can have kids and who shouldn't, but if you are going to live off of my money, I say we should have those requirements. I'm not asking of the poor anymore than we ask of the working. After all, when working people have enough children they can afford, what do they do? They make sure they can't have any more. I know plenty of working people that wished they could afford more kids, but they couldn't. Yet with lowlifes, they can have as many as they desire. How is that fair? After all, if you don't want to be fixed, then don't apply for government handouts. It's an option you know.
Look, when a wealthy person usually ends up with wealthy children and a poor person usually ends up with poor children, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.
My mom and dad were the classic across the railroad track marriage. Dad grew up dirt poor. Mom grew up fabulously wealthy. Dad and his siblings are all highly successful individuals. Mom never struck a lick in her life and her siblings were worthless. Now Dad and I control all that is left of what was once a huge estate that covered half the county.
Part of the problem. Children today get the benefit of HALF the percentage of federal outlays as they did when I was a kid. The damn parasitic boomer generation gets TWICE the benefit from federal outlays that their parents got. They have been sucking and sucking and sucking until damn near little is left and here you are, bitching and moaning about a itty bitty bit of food stamp spending by "lowlife" Moms. Honestly, it pisses me off.
If you are going to get pissed off about politics and polices, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing them.
We always had welfare programs, but years ago, they paid so little nobody could actually survive on them alone. Today, the amount of benefits collected by so-called poor families exceeds that of an average income earner.
It's like Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!"
So we are so concerned about the poor children that we load them up with SNAP's cards, school lunches, and allow them to buy crap food at the grocery store. The liberal solution by Moochelle Obama? Only sell them food they won't eat at school.
Yes, when wealthy people produce wealthy children and poor people produce poor children, there is a problem: we are letting the poor procreate on taxpayer money.
In 1980, I got my first apartment. I had a fascination for birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.
Spring came around and I got to meet my elderly neighbor. He looked up at my back porch and said "You know Ray, what you are doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing, but you may be bringing them more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter time is helpful because there is no food to be found. But leaving that thing up year round, the birds will soon become too dependent on it and forget how to obtain their own food. If you move or become disinterested in feeding the birds any longer, they will parish."
I always remembered the old mans words; not because of the birds, but later in life, I realized that's what government does with people: keep the feeder up year round.
Food stamps, free lunch, all that stuff is only provided in the winter time. When the summer comes, and their incomes increase, they don't get the benefits.
I mean here is a thought. If you want those people off the public dole DON'T PUNISH THEM when they make more money. That single "low-life" mom with three kids, if she takes a second job, she already probably has one, she pays something like EIGHTY CENTS for ever additional dollar she earns. She earns an extra dollar she loses food stamps, she losing the EITC, and she pays social security tax on that additional income.
The CBO calculates that her effective marginal tax rate would range from a modest 17% to a jaw-dropping 95% (see chart 1). If the prospect of keeping only five cents of each extra dollar earned does not discourage work, it is hard to imagine what might.
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...early-well-it-should-taxing-hard-up-americans
Which is what I've been saying all along: our government rewards people for being failures.
When you have a social system that penalizes success and rewards failure, how do you expect more successful people?
True story:
About a year and a half ago, one of my tenants became increasingly late with rent. So I invited them to my apartment to discuss the problem.
This was an unmarried couple with two children. Their 12 year old smoked, but couldn't work to support her habit, so they provided her with tobacco products. They had a large dog and three cats to boot. The father of the children believed that it was not worth his time to work more than 40 hours. She stayed home all day to "supposedly" home school their two children.
Since he didn't want to work more hours, and she stayed home all day, I suggested she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home to watch the kids. They could catch up on their rent and perhaps save for another used car since theirs was a rust bucket that didn't start half of the time.
They didn't even entertain my idea. Why? Because she got $250.00 a month for food stamps for the kids, and any income she created would work against that stipend.
Long story short, I had to evict them through the courts. Now he has a record of eviction which will be on his record for years to come. Why? Because she wanted to keep her food stamps.
First, remember our two little states. In mine only one person was working. That one person paid one hundred percent of the taxes because he made one hundred percent of the income. Here is the deal, I agree with you. The wealthy pay too much of the total taxes. So let's make the tax rates what they were in the 1950's, when the rich had high marginal tax rates but shouldered less of the total tax burden.
Now, to rent seeking.
Rent-seeking - Wikipedia
My favorite definition. Instead of making more pie, rent seeking is gaining more of the pie that is already there.
Your lower investment taxes, it's ignorant to claim they stimulate investment. If a company thinks they can make a dollar they will invest a dollar. More importantly, the weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the marginal tax rate. That's right, the higher the tax rate the LOWER the cost of capital. It's fundamental accounting. When tax rates are low companies are less likely to invest in risky investments and stick with the tried and true, RENT SEEKING.
Wealthy people don't rent seek (according to Wiki's description) They always invest their profits for more profits.
Want to make tax rates back to the 1950's? Go right ahead, and watch those rich people leave the country like so many have already. When they take the jobs with them, don't complain.
Back in the 1950's, there were few countries to take your business to. Travel was more dangerous than it is today because we didn't have satellites in the universe telling you weather conditions. If you did leave, you still had to conduct meetings with your heads of staff. But it didn't make sense to move your business because back in the 50's, people in other countries made the same as US workers; or close to it.
Today is different. Today, travel is much safer. You can take your company elsewhere, and track your other investments on your cell phone. Meetings? All done on the internet today. Labor? One-fifth of the cost of US labor.
As to your one-state theory: If the tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If the tax rate were 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars, because who would be stupid enough to invest or work?
WTF you mean wealthy people don't seek rents? What do you call political contributions? Jesus, the only money DeVos has ever invested was in seeking rents. And the Koch's, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars SEEKING RENTS. Jesus dude, wake up and smell the coffee.
Come on, do you hit the cap on Social Security taxes? If not, why do you have to pay Social Security taxes on every dime you make and the wealthy don't? And just how much long term capital gains do you claim? Does it make any sense at all that unearned income is taxed lower than earned income. Damn, unearned, earned---WTF, it should be obvious.
And that definition of rent seeking, it is income THAT IS NOT EARNED. Again, WTF. Funny, you are really pissed at the food stamp beneficiary spending money he doesn't earn, but the wealthy claiming millions and millions in UNEARNED income and paying a lower tax rate than your hard working ass, you just bend over and ask for another. It pisses me off and talk about being penny wise and pound foolish.
In my opinion, what a person makes is their business--not societies. How they spend that money is their business too since it is their money.
When somebody is spending my money, that is my concern. Why? Because I go out and work for it every day, that's why.
If you put high taxes on capital gains, less people will invest in capital gains. That's the whole idea. We need those rich people monies to support our stock market and other capital investments because in the end, it benefits us all.
Long term capital gains? Let me ask, do you own a house? Because if you do, you have a long term capital gain? Tax break? Unless they changed the laws, you don't have to pay taxes on the first home you buy once you sell it at a profit. It doesn't have to be the first home either. You can choose any house you like if you plan on moving around quite a bit.
And where is your retirement account? Mine is in the stock market like most people. I am hoping for a great return in a few years once I'm out of the workforce and retired. To get that return, I need to see the market grow. To make the market grow, I need people to get that lower tax so they will pump that money into the market.
First, remember our two little states. In mine only one person was working. That one person paid one hundred percent of the taxes because he made one hundred percent of the income. Here is the deal, I agree with you. The wealthy pay too much of the total taxes. So let's make the tax rates what they were in the 1950's, when the rich had high marginal tax rates but shouldered less of the total tax burden.
Now, to rent seeking.
Rent-seeking - Wikipedia
My favorite definition. Instead of making more pie, rent seeking is gaining more of the pie that is already there.
Your lower investment taxes, it's ignorant to claim they stimulate investment. If a company thinks they can make a dollar they will invest a dollar. More importantly, the weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the marginal tax rate. That's right, the higher the tax rate the LOWER the cost of capital. It's fundamental accounting. When tax rates are low companies are less likely to invest in risky investments and stick with the tried and true, RENT SEEKING.
Wealthy people don't rent seek (according to Wiki's description) They always invest their profits for more profits.
Want to make tax rates back to the 1950's? Go right ahead, and watch those rich people leave the country like so many have already. When they take the jobs with them, don't complain.
Back in the 1950's, there were few countries to take your business to. Travel was more dangerous than it is today because we didn't have satellites in the universe telling you weather conditions. If you did leave, you still had to conduct meetings with your heads of staff. But it didn't make sense to move your business because back in the 50's, people in other countries made the same as US workers; or close to it.
Today is different. Today, travel is much safer. You can take your company elsewhere, and track your other investments on your cell phone. Meetings? All done on the internet today. Labor? One-fifth of the cost of US labor.
As to your one-state theory: If the tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If the tax rate were 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars, because who would be stupid enough to invest or work?
WTF you mean wealthy people don't seek rents? What do you call political contributions? Jesus, the only money DeVos has ever invested was in seeking rents. And the Koch's, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars SEEKING RENTS. Jesus dude, wake up and smell the coffee.
Come on, do you hit the cap on Social Security taxes? If not, why do you have to pay Social Security taxes on every dime you make and the wealthy don't? And just how much long term capital gains do you claim? Does it make any sense at all that unearned income is taxed lower than earned income. Damn, unearned, earned---WTF, it should be obvious.
And that definition of rent seeking, it is income THAT IS NOT EARNED. Again, WTF. Funny, you are really pissed at the food stamp beneficiary spending money he doesn't earn, but the wealthy claiming millions and millions in UNEARNED income and paying a lower tax rate than your hard working ass, you just bend over and ask for another. It pisses me off and talk about being penny wise and pound foolish.
In my opinion, what a person makes is their business--not societies. How they spend that money is their business too since it is their money.
When somebody is spending my money, that is my concern. Why? Because I go out and work for it every day, that's why.
If you put high taxes on capital gains, less people will invest in capital gains. That's the whole idea. We need those rich people monies to support our stock market and other capital investments because in the end, it benefits us all.
Long term capital gains? Let me ask, do you own a house? Because if you do, you have a long term capital gain? Tax break? Unless they changed the laws, you don't have to pay taxes on the first home you buy once you sell it at a profit. It doesn't have to be the first home either. You can choose any house you like if you plan on moving around quite a bit.
And where is your retirement account? Mine is in the stock market like most people. I am hoping for a great return in a few years once I'm out of the workforce and retired. To get that return, I need to see the market grow. To make the market grow, I need people to get that lower tax so they will pump that money into the market.
The food stamp beneficiary is no more spending your money than your barber. Come on, it is not a hard concept to understand. Once you turn over your tax money to the government, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE, just like when you turn your money over to your barber, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE.
But to the stock market. That is not investing. It is saving.
If you buy a lawnmower and use it to mow people's yards, you are investing. But, if you buy a piece of paper giving you ownership in someone's lawnmower, you are saving. You don't expect to go out there and mow yards. You expect to sell that piece of paper to someone else in the future. The dude doing the work, the one with the lawnmower, he never sees any of the money as that paper is transferred from individual to individual.
Dude,don't you drive a truck? You do not need people to pump money into the market. You need people to BUY THINGS and MAKE THINGS. When billions of dollars are tied up in the stock market, when the markets "capitalization" grows, it does not result in any production. In fact, it does the exact opposite, as more and more people put money into the market that could either be used to purchase goods, DEMAND, or produce goods, SUPPLY.
And funny thing about your retirement account. It is in the stock market. When you take it out, do you pay income taxes on it or capital gains? You pay income taxes on it. But the wealthy people, the people that put in non-qualified money, they pay capital gains. So even when you try to play their game, you still get screwed. Honestly, unless you have some huge employer match, placing money in a qualified retirement account is a sucker's bet that creates a tax bomb.
Now, I hope we can agree that since 1980 the economy has kind of sucked for working people like you. The vast majority of wealth creation has went to the upper one percent, most of that to the upper one tenth of a percent. In 1980 the total market capitalization, that is the total value of all stocks, was 40% of GDP. Today it is 140%. You need the market to grow like you need a hole in your head.
First, remember our two little states. In mine only one person was working. That one person paid one hundred percent of the taxes because he made one hundred percent of the income. Here is the deal, I agree with you. The wealthy pay too much of the total taxes. So let's make the tax rates what they were in the 1950's, when the rich had high marginal tax rates but shouldered less of the total tax burden.
Now, to rent seeking.
Rent-seeking - Wikipedia
My favorite definition. Instead of making more pie, rent seeking is gaining more of the pie that is already there.
Your lower investment taxes, it's ignorant to claim they stimulate investment. If a company thinks they can make a dollar they will invest a dollar. More importantly, the weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the marginal tax rate. That's right, the higher the tax rate the LOWER the cost of capital. It's fundamental accounting. When tax rates are low companies are less likely to invest in risky investments and stick with the tried and true, RENT SEEKING.
Wealthy people don't rent seek (according to Wiki's description) They always invest their profits for more profits.
Want to make tax rates back to the 1950's? Go right ahead, and watch those rich people leave the country like so many have already. When they take the jobs with them, don't complain.
Back in the 1950's, there were few countries to take your business to. Travel was more dangerous than it is today because we didn't have satellites in the universe telling you weather conditions. If you did leave, you still had to conduct meetings with your heads of staff. But it didn't make sense to move your business because back in the 50's, people in other countries made the same as US workers; or close to it.
Today is different. Today, travel is much safer. You can take your company elsewhere, and track your other investments on your cell phone. Meetings? All done on the internet today. Labor? One-fifth of the cost of US labor.
As to your one-state theory: If the tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If the tax rate were 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars, because who would be stupid enough to invest or work?
WTF you mean wealthy people don't seek rents? What do you call political contributions? Jesus, the only money DeVos has ever invested was in seeking rents. And the Koch's, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars SEEKING RENTS. Jesus dude, wake up and smell the coffee.
Come on, do you hit the cap on Social Security taxes? If not, why do you have to pay Social Security taxes on every dime you make and the wealthy don't? And just how much long term capital gains do you claim? Does it make any sense at all that unearned income is taxed lower than earned income. Damn, unearned, earned---WTF, it should be obvious.
And that definition of rent seeking, it is income THAT IS NOT EARNED. Again, WTF. Funny, you are really pissed at the food stamp beneficiary spending money he doesn't earn, but the wealthy claiming millions and millions in UNEARNED income and paying a lower tax rate than your hard working ass, you just bend over and ask for another. It pisses me off and talk about being penny wise and pound foolish.
In my opinion, what a person makes is their business--not societies. How they spend that money is their business too since it is their money.
When somebody is spending my money, that is my concern. Why? Because I go out and work for it every day, that's why.
If you put high taxes on capital gains, less people will invest in capital gains. That's the whole idea. We need those rich people monies to support our stock market and other capital investments because in the end, it benefits us all.
Long term capital gains? Let me ask, do you own a house? Because if you do, you have a long term capital gain? Tax break? Unless they changed the laws, you don't have to pay taxes on the first home you buy once you sell it at a profit. It doesn't have to be the first home either. You can choose any house you like if you plan on moving around quite a bit.
And where is your retirement account? Mine is in the stock market like most people. I am hoping for a great return in a few years once I'm out of the workforce and retired. To get that return, I need to see the market grow. To make the market grow, I need people to get that lower tax so they will pump that money into the market.
First, remember our two little states. In mine only one person was working. That one person paid one hundred percent of the taxes because he made one hundred percent of the income. Here is the deal, I agree with you. The wealthy pay too much of the total taxes. So let's make the tax rates what they were in the 1950's, when the rich had high marginal tax rates but shouldered less of the total tax burden.
Now, to rent seeking.
Rent-seeking - Wikipedia
My favorite definition. Instead of making more pie, rent seeking is gaining more of the pie that is already there.
Your lower investment taxes, it's ignorant to claim they stimulate investment. If a company thinks they can make a dollar they will invest a dollar. More importantly, the weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the marginal tax rate. That's right, the higher the tax rate the LOWER the cost of capital. It's fundamental accounting. When tax rates are low companies are less likely to invest in risky investments and stick with the tried and true, RENT SEEKING.
Wealthy people don't rent seek (according to Wiki's description) They always invest their profits for more profits.
Want to make tax rates back to the 1950's? Go right ahead, and watch those rich people leave the country like so many have already. When they take the jobs with them, don't complain.
Back in the 1950's, there were few countries to take your business to. Travel was more dangerous than it is today because we didn't have satellites in the universe telling you weather conditions. If you did leave, you still had to conduct meetings with your heads of staff. But it didn't make sense to move your business because back in the 50's, people in other countries made the same as US workers; or close to it.
Today is different. Today, travel is much safer. You can take your company elsewhere, and track your other investments on your cell phone. Meetings? All done on the internet today. Labor? One-fifth of the cost of US labor.
As to your one-state theory: If the tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If the tax rate were 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars, because who would be stupid enough to invest or work?
WTF you mean wealthy people don't seek rents? What do you call political contributions? Jesus, the only money DeVos has ever invested was in seeking rents. And the Koch's, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars SEEKING RENTS. Jesus dude, wake up and smell the coffee.
Come on, do you hit the cap on Social Security taxes? If not, why do you have to pay Social Security taxes on every dime you make and the wealthy don't? And just how much long term capital gains do you claim? Does it make any sense at all that unearned income is taxed lower than earned income. Damn, unearned, earned---WTF, it should be obvious.
And that definition of rent seeking, it is income THAT IS NOT EARNED. Again, WTF. Funny, you are really pissed at the food stamp beneficiary spending money he doesn't earn, but the wealthy claiming millions and millions in UNEARNED income and paying a lower tax rate than your hard working ass, you just bend over and ask for another. It pisses me off and talk about being penny wise and pound foolish.
In my opinion, what a person makes is their business--not societies. How they spend that money is their business too since it is their money.
When somebody is spending my money, that is my concern. Why? Because I go out and work for it every day, that's why.
If you put high taxes on capital gains, less people will invest in capital gains. That's the whole idea. We need those rich people monies to support our stock market and other capital investments because in the end, it benefits us all.
Long term capital gains? Let me ask, do you own a house? Because if you do, you have a long term capital gain? Tax break? Unless they changed the laws, you don't have to pay taxes on the first home you buy once you sell it at a profit. It doesn't have to be the first home either. You can choose any house you like if you plan on moving around quite a bit.
And where is your retirement account? Mine is in the stock market like most people. I am hoping for a great return in a few years once I'm out of the workforce and retired. To get that return, I need to see the market grow. To make the market grow, I need people to get that lower tax so they will pump that money into the market.
The food stamp beneficiary is no more spending your money than your barber. Come on, it is not a hard concept to understand. Once you turn over your tax money to the government, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE, just like when you turn your money over to your barber, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE.
But to the stock market. That is not investing. It is saving.
If you buy a lawnmower and use it to mow people's yards, you are investing. But, if you buy a piece of paper giving you ownership in someone's lawnmower, you are saving. You don't expect to go out there and mow yards. You expect to sell that piece of paper to someone else in the future. The dude doing the work, the one with the lawnmower, he never sees any of the money as that paper is transferred from individual to individual.
Dude,don't you drive a truck? You do not need people to pump money into the market. You need people to BUY THINGS and MAKE THINGS. When billions of dollars are tied up in the stock market, when the markets "capitalization" grows, it does not result in any production. In fact, it does the exact opposite, as more and more people put money into the market that could either be used to purchase goods, DEMAND, or produce goods, SUPPLY.
And funny thing about your retirement account. It is in the stock market. When you take it out, do you pay income taxes on it or capital gains? You pay income taxes on it. But the wealthy people, the people that put in non-qualified money, they pay capital gains. So even when you try to play their game, you still get screwed. Honestly, unless you have some huge employer match, placing money in a qualified retirement account is a sucker's bet that creates a tax bomb.
Now, I hope we can agree that since 1980 the economy has kind of sucked for working people like you. The vast majority of wealth creation has went to the upper one percent, most of that to the upper one tenth of a percent. In 1980 the total market capitalization, that is the total value of all stocks, was 40% of GDP. Today it is 140%. You need the market to grow like you need a hole in your head.
Onceyou turn over your tax money to the government, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE
So you saying we have a choice now not turn over are money to the government?
What kind of assnine statement is that?
.
Btw what happened to government is we the people?
.
Wealthy people don't rent seek (according to Wiki's description) They always invest their profits for more profits.
Want to make tax rates back to the 1950's? Go right ahead, and watch those rich people leave the country like so many have already. When they take the jobs with them, don't complain.
Back in the 1950's, there were few countries to take your business to. Travel was more dangerous than it is today because we didn't have satellites in the universe telling you weather conditions. If you did leave, you still had to conduct meetings with your heads of staff. But it didn't make sense to move your business because back in the 50's, people in other countries made the same as US workers; or close to it.
Today is different. Today, travel is much safer. You can take your company elsewhere, and track your other investments on your cell phone. Meetings? All done on the internet today. Labor? One-fifth of the cost of US labor.
As to your one-state theory: If the tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If the tax rate were 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars, because who would be stupid enough to invest or work?
WTF you mean wealthy people don't seek rents? What do you call political contributions? Jesus, the only money DeVos has ever invested was in seeking rents. And the Koch's, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars SEEKING RENTS. Jesus dude, wake up and smell the coffee.
Come on, do you hit the cap on Social Security taxes? If not, why do you have to pay Social Security taxes on every dime you make and the wealthy don't? And just how much long term capital gains do you claim? Does it make any sense at all that unearned income is taxed lower than earned income. Damn, unearned, earned---WTF, it should be obvious.
And that definition of rent seeking, it is income THAT IS NOT EARNED. Again, WTF. Funny, you are really pissed at the food stamp beneficiary spending money he doesn't earn, but the wealthy claiming millions and millions in UNEARNED income and paying a lower tax rate than your hard working ass, you just bend over and ask for another. It pisses me off and talk about being penny wise and pound foolish.
In my opinion, what a person makes is their business--not societies. How they spend that money is their business too since it is their money.
When somebody is spending my money, that is my concern. Why? Because I go out and work for it every day, that's why.
If you put high taxes on capital gains, less people will invest in capital gains. That's the whole idea. We need those rich people monies to support our stock market and other capital investments because in the end, it benefits us all.
Long term capital gains? Let me ask, do you own a house? Because if you do, you have a long term capital gain? Tax break? Unless they changed the laws, you don't have to pay taxes on the first home you buy once you sell it at a profit. It doesn't have to be the first home either. You can choose any house you like if you plan on moving around quite a bit.
And where is your retirement account? Mine is in the stock market like most people. I am hoping for a great return in a few years once I'm out of the workforce and retired. To get that return, I need to see the market grow. To make the market grow, I need people to get that lower tax so they will pump that money into the market.
Wealthy people don't rent seek (according to Wiki's description) They always invest their profits for more profits.
Want to make tax rates back to the 1950's? Go right ahead, and watch those rich people leave the country like so many have already. When they take the jobs with them, don't complain.
Back in the 1950's, there were few countries to take your business to. Travel was more dangerous than it is today because we didn't have satellites in the universe telling you weather conditions. If you did leave, you still had to conduct meetings with your heads of staff. But it didn't make sense to move your business because back in the 50's, people in other countries made the same as US workers; or close to it.
Today is different. Today, travel is much safer. You can take your company elsewhere, and track your other investments on your cell phone. Meetings? All done on the internet today. Labor? One-fifth of the cost of US labor.
As to your one-state theory: If the tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If the tax rate were 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars, because who would be stupid enough to invest or work?
WTF you mean wealthy people don't seek rents? What do you call political contributions? Jesus, the only money DeVos has ever invested was in seeking rents. And the Koch's, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars SEEKING RENTS. Jesus dude, wake up and smell the coffee.
Come on, do you hit the cap on Social Security taxes? If not, why do you have to pay Social Security taxes on every dime you make and the wealthy don't? And just how much long term capital gains do you claim? Does it make any sense at all that unearned income is taxed lower than earned income. Damn, unearned, earned---WTF, it should be obvious.
And that definition of rent seeking, it is income THAT IS NOT EARNED. Again, WTF. Funny, you are really pissed at the food stamp beneficiary spending money he doesn't earn, but the wealthy claiming millions and millions in UNEARNED income and paying a lower tax rate than your hard working ass, you just bend over and ask for another. It pisses me off and talk about being penny wise and pound foolish.
In my opinion, what a person makes is their business--not societies. How they spend that money is their business too since it is their money.
When somebody is spending my money, that is my concern. Why? Because I go out and work for it every day, that's why.
If you put high taxes on capital gains, less people will invest in capital gains. That's the whole idea. We need those rich people monies to support our stock market and other capital investments because in the end, it benefits us all.
Long term capital gains? Let me ask, do you own a house? Because if you do, you have a long term capital gain? Tax break? Unless they changed the laws, you don't have to pay taxes on the first home you buy once you sell it at a profit. It doesn't have to be the first home either. You can choose any house you like if you plan on moving around quite a bit.
And where is your retirement account? Mine is in the stock market like most people. I am hoping for a great return in a few years once I'm out of the workforce and retired. To get that return, I need to see the market grow. To make the market grow, I need people to get that lower tax so they will pump that money into the market.
The food stamp beneficiary is no more spending your money than your barber. Come on, it is not a hard concept to understand. Once you turn over your tax money to the government, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE, just like when you turn your money over to your barber, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE.
But to the stock market. That is not investing. It is saving.
If you buy a lawnmower and use it to mow people's yards, you are investing. But, if you buy a piece of paper giving you ownership in someone's lawnmower, you are saving. You don't expect to go out there and mow yards. You expect to sell that piece of paper to someone else in the future. The dude doing the work, the one with the lawnmower, he never sees any of the money as that paper is transferred from individual to individual.
Dude,don't you drive a truck? You do not need people to pump money into the market. You need people to BUY THINGS and MAKE THINGS. When billions of dollars are tied up in the stock market, when the markets "capitalization" grows, it does not result in any production. In fact, it does the exact opposite, as more and more people put money into the market that could either be used to purchase goods, DEMAND, or produce goods, SUPPLY.
And funny thing about your retirement account. It is in the stock market. When you take it out, do you pay income taxes on it or capital gains? You pay income taxes on it. But the wealthy people, the people that put in non-qualified money, they pay capital gains. So even when you try to play their game, you still get screwed. Honestly, unless you have some huge employer match, placing money in a qualified retirement account is a sucker's bet that creates a tax bomb.
Now, I hope we can agree that since 1980 the economy has kind of sucked for working people like you. The vast majority of wealth creation has went to the upper one percent, most of that to the upper one tenth of a percent. In 1980 the total market capitalization, that is the total value of all stocks, was 40% of GDP. Today it is 140%. You need the market to grow like you need a hole in your head.
Onceyou turn over your tax money to the government, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE
So you saying we have a choice now not turn over are money to the government?
What kind of assnine statement is that?
.
Btw what happened to government is we the people?
.
Sure you have a choice. Don't want to pay taxes, don't earn any income. After all, all you righties claim those that don't work have it made. So join them. I don't care. I encourage it.
I am all for helping people in need. What I object to is to allow Food Stamp users to buy all that junk food that supermarkets make all their money on. They need to be required to buy healthy food. Maybe if they start eating healthy their health care costs might just go down. Bet most are on Medicaid.1) The cost of food stamps is a small fraction of the overall welfare budget
2) 2/3 of those on food stamps are kids
3) Few people even qualify for food stamps because it is reserved for the poorest of the poor. It's a program way behind on the rate of inflation as well.
4) Some Veterans are on food stamps.
5) Any adult on food stamps has a job
Republicans in congress are either complete assholes or are willfully ignorant.
But hey i get it: it gives republicans hard ons to say "i don't need a handout! I provide! I'm tough as nails! Derp, derp, derp!" They then pretend complete falsehoods or stereotypes about the program because it makes them feel more manly i guess.
Why can't facts ever permeate the republican bubble?
Ya know...tell your mom to send you to the store for groceries.
I spend about $225 a month on groceries, but I'm a pensioner who has the time and skills to do all of my own cooking. I don't eat anything I didn't make from scratch, including baking my own cookies, muffins and dessert breads, and I make family sized batches and freeze the leftovers so I cook for about a week and then make pancakes, soups, mac n cheese, and bake the rest of the month, always freezing leftovers.
Today I had blueberry pancakes for breakfast, mac n cheese with sausages for lunch, and shepherd's pie for dinner, all from my freezer.
Working parents (54% of SNAP recipients are working parents) don't have the time or the energy to pore over fliers to see where the best deals are. Or to go to three different grocery stores to lower their costs. They don't then spend hours cooking each day. I certainly didn't do any of these things when I was a working wife. I went to one store and bought what they had on sale, but then I was also spending about $150 a week for a family of 3.
On the amount I have to spend, I don't eat steak or shrimp. Shrimp are on sale this week but at $4.88 for 12 ounces, I can't afford it. Ground beef is $6.00 a pound right now, so I'm not eating much beef at all, not when I can make pulled pork for $1.88 a pound.
The food stamp beneficiary is no more spending your money than your barber. Come on, it is not a hard concept to understand. Once you turn over your tax money to the government, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE, just like when you turn your money over to your barber, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE.
The food stamp beneficiary is no more spending your money than your barber. Come on, it is not a hard concept to understand. Once you turn over your tax money to the government, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE, just like when you turn your money over to your barber, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE.
I expect nothing more coming from a Progressive. Frankly, I usually see better from Progressives than them trying to sell a line that government money is NOT taxpayer money.
Over the decades I've had hundreds of haircuts. Never once, in all those years did I have a single barber demand money from me under threat of imprisonment then not even cut my hair. Usually, I say, "cute try" but this was simply pathetic.
Why is it that people get all mad over a poor-ish guy getting some stamps but don't look twice at million dollar farms getting subsidies from the same bill?
You could not be more wrong. That kid, by about the time he is twelve he can pick up on your "lowlife" viewpoint. How do you think that makes him feel? You have already condemned him to a life of failure. I don't know how much you know about "life", but it is true, you can create your own reality.
You could not be more wrong. That kid, by about the time he is twelve he can pick up on your "lowlife" viewpoint. How do you think that makes him feel? You have already condemned him to a life of failure. I don't know how much you know about "life", but it is true, you can create your own reality.
Dude, the sterilization you are proposing has a name. It is called EUGENICS. Now you believe the government should have the ability to decide who can procreate and who can't. How can you align that with the viewpoint that the government screws up everything it touches. Total cognitive dissonance. Makes no damn sense. If the government can decide who can procreate and who can't, who can enter the country and who can't, then the government gets to pick and choose it's citizens. It is a recipe for disaster.
I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts. One's success should not be based on their luck in the womb lottery. It should be dependent upon their hard work and dedication. The place of the government is to make sure those born to "lowlifes" have the same opportunities as those born into wealth.
With such a belief, we will always have lowlifes because we reward the procreation of them.
In most cases, a wealthy person will end up with wealthy children. An upper class family will usually end up with upper-class children. Middle-class people usually end up with middle-class children. There is nothing exceptional about the poor. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
In essence, what we are doing is paying poor people to produce more poor people. How is that any winning strategy? Wouldn't it make more sense to pay the middle-class or the wealthy to have more middle-class and wealthy children?
Eugenics? I never said government should tell people who can have kids and who shouldn't, but if you are going to live off of my money, I say we should have those requirements. I'm not asking of the poor anymore than we ask of the working. After all, when working people have enough children they can afford, what do they do? They make sure they can't have any more. I know plenty of working people that wished they could afford more kids, but they couldn't. Yet with lowlifes, they can have as many as they desire. How is that fair? After all, if you don't want to be fixed, then don't apply for government handouts. It's an option you know.
Look, when a wealthy person usually ends up with wealthy children and a poor person usually ends up with poor children, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.
My mom and dad were the classic across the railroad track marriage. Dad grew up dirt poor. Mom grew up fabulously wealthy. Dad and his siblings are all highly successful individuals. Mom never struck a lick in her life and her siblings were worthless. Now Dad and I control all that is left of what was once a huge estate that covered half the county.
Part of the problem. Children today get the benefit of HALF the percentage of federal outlays as they did when I was a kid. The damn parasitic boomer generation gets TWICE the benefit from federal outlays that their parents got. They have been sucking and sucking and sucking until damn near little is left and here you are, bitching and moaning about a itty bitty bit of food stamp spending by "lowlife" Moms. Honestly, it pisses me off.
If you are going to get pissed off about politics and polices, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing them.
We always had welfare programs, but years ago, they paid so little nobody could actually survive on them alone. Today, the amount of benefits collected by so-called poor families exceeds that of an average income earner.
It's like Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!"
So we are so concerned about the poor children that we load them up with SNAP's cards, school lunches, and allow them to buy crap food at the grocery store. The liberal solution by Moochelle Obama? Only sell them food they won't eat at school.
Yes, when wealthy people produce wealthy children and poor people produce poor children, there is a problem: we are letting the poor procreate on taxpayer money.
In 1980, I got my first apartment. I had a fascination for birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.
Spring came around and I got to meet my elderly neighbor. He looked up at my back porch and said "You know Ray, what you are doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing, but you may be bringing them more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter time is helpful because there is no food to be found. But leaving that thing up year round, the birds will soon become too dependent on it and forget how to obtain their own food. If you move or become disinterested in feeding the birds any longer, they will parish."
I always remembered the old mans words; not because of the birds, but later in life, I realized that's what government does with people: keep the feeder up year round.
Food stamps, free lunch, all that stuff is only provided in the winter time. When the summer comes, and their incomes increase, they don't get the benefits.
I mean here is a thought. If you want those people off the public dole DON'T PUNISH THEM when they make more money. That single "low-life" mom with three kids, if she takes a second job, she already probably has one, she pays something like EIGHTY CENTS for ever additional dollar she earns. She earns an extra dollar she loses food stamps, she losing the EITC, and she pays social security tax on that additional income.
The CBO calculates that her effective marginal tax rate would range from a modest 17% to a jaw-dropping 95% (see chart 1). If the prospect of keeping only five cents of each extra dollar earned does not discourage work, it is hard to imagine what might.
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...early-well-it-should-taxing-hard-up-americans
Which is what I've been saying all along: our government rewards people for being failures.
When you have a social system that penalizes success and rewards failure, how do you expect more successful people?
True story:
About a year and a half ago, one of my tenants became increasingly late with rent. So I invited them to my apartment to discuss the problem.
This was an unmarried couple with two children. Their 12 year old smoked, but couldn't work to support her habit, so they provided her with tobacco products. They had a large dog and three cats to boot. The father of the children believed that it was not worth his time to work more than 40 hours. She stayed home all day to "supposedly" home school their two children.
Since he didn't want to work more hours, and she stayed home all day, I suggested she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home to watch the kids. They could catch up on their rent and perhaps save for another used car since theirs was a rust bucket that didn't start half of the time.
They didn't even entertain my idea. Why? Because she got $250.00 a month for food stamps for the kids, and any income she created would work against that stipend.
Long story short, I had to evict them through the courts. Now he has a record of eviction which will be on his record for years to come. Why? Because she wanted to keep her food stamps.
Show us one on Entitlement spending son.
Sure cupcake
2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States
Most Federally Dependent States
Rank
(1 = Most Dependent)
State
Total Score
‘State Residents’ Dependency’ Rank
‘State Government’s Dependency’ Rank
1 Kentucky 76.16 6 5
2 Mississippi 75.59 7 1
3 New Mexico 73.88 3 17
4 Alabama 72.45 4 14
5 West Virginia 68.97 5 15
6 South Carolina 68.17 2 31
7 Montana 65.91 14 4
8 Tennessee 61.76 20 3
9 Maine 61.02 13 9
10 Indiana 59.18 7 23
11 Arizona 59.08 15 11
12 Louisiana 55.39 40 2
13 South Dakota 53.57 24 7
14 Missouri 52.66 31 6
15 Oregon 51.51 23 10
16 Georgia 49.81 34 8
17 Idaho 49.64 19 19
18 Vermont 49.56 18 20
19 Wyoming 48.80 26 12
20 Maryland 48.18 11 32
21 Oklahoma 47.78 21 18
22 Pennsylvania 46.15 17 30
23 Alaska 45.81 10 40
24 Rhode Island 45.05 36 16
25 Florida 43.84 27 22
26 Ohio 42.25 45 13
27 Arkansas 42.12 38 21
28 North Carolina 41.63 32 25
29 Hawaii 41.63 9 46
30 Iowa 41.38 33 26
31 Wisconsin 41.09 16 38
32 North Dakota 40.46 1 50
33 Michigan 40.43 35 27
34 New York 37.65 44 24
35 Texas 36.81 42 28
36 Washington 35.32 30 33
37 Colorado 35.20 29 34
38 Virginia 34.43 12 49
39 Nebraska 33.78 47 29
40 Utah 33.28 28 35
41 New Hampshire 31.11 37 36
42 Connecticut 27.80 22 48
43 Massachusetts 27.36 46 37
44 Nevada 26.94 25 47
45 Kansas 25.39 39 45
46 California 25.36 41 43
47 Illinois 23.96 48 41
48 New Jersey 23.84 49 39
49 Minnesota 23.09 43 44
50 Delaware 21.32 50 42
2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States
Entitlement spending by President son. I cannot be side tracked.
Cupcake, why don't YOU present that since YOU want it.
But how about showing 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator policies versus Obama's?
How is that snowflake?
1) The cost of food stamps is a small fraction of the overall welfare budget
2) 2/3 of those on food stamps are kids
3) Few people even qualify for food stamps because it is reserved for the poorest of the poor. It's a program way behind on the rate of inflation as well.
4) Some Veterans are on food stamps.
5) Any adult on food stamps has a job
Republicans in congress are either complete assholes or are willfully ignorant.
But hey i get it: it gives republicans hard ons to say "i don't need a handout! I provide! I'm tough as nails! Derp, derp, derp!" They then pretend complete falsehoods or stereotypes about the program because it makes them feel more manly i guess.
Why can't facts ever permeate the republican bubble?
Why can't facts ever permeate the republican bubble?
Well....alrighty then, you're obviously a stupid, fucking republican...The cost of food stamps is a small fraction of the overall welfare budget
Whose parents are in the stores buying soda,2/3 of those on food stamps are kids
Bitch, the poorest of the poor, are not dressed inFew people even qualify for food stamps
because it is reserved for the poorest of the poor.
The only complete asshole you should be concerned with, IS YOU!Republicans in congress are either complete assholes or are willfully ignorant
With such a belief, we will always have lowlifes because we reward the procreation of them.
In most cases, a wealthy person will end up with wealthy children. An upper class family will usually end up with upper-class children. Middle-class people usually end up with middle-class children. There is nothing exceptional about the poor. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
In essence, what we are doing is paying poor people to produce more poor people. How is that any winning strategy? Wouldn't it make more sense to pay the middle-class or the wealthy to have more middle-class and wealthy children?
Eugenics? I never said government should tell people who can have kids and who shouldn't, but if you are going to live off of my money, I say we should have those requirements. I'm not asking of the poor anymore than we ask of the working. After all, when working people have enough children they can afford, what do they do? They make sure they can't have any more. I know plenty of working people that wished they could afford more kids, but they couldn't. Yet with lowlifes, they can have as many as they desire. How is that fair? After all, if you don't want to be fixed, then don't apply for government handouts. It's an option you know.
Look, when a wealthy person usually ends up with wealthy children and a poor person usually ends up with poor children, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.
My mom and dad were the classic across the railroad track marriage. Dad grew up dirt poor. Mom grew up fabulously wealthy. Dad and his siblings are all highly successful individuals. Mom never struck a lick in her life and her siblings were worthless. Now Dad and I control all that is left of what was once a huge estate that covered half the county.
Part of the problem. Children today get the benefit of HALF the percentage of federal outlays as they did when I was a kid. The damn parasitic boomer generation gets TWICE the benefit from federal outlays that their parents got. They have been sucking and sucking and sucking until damn near little is left and here you are, bitching and moaning about a itty bitty bit of food stamp spending by "lowlife" Moms. Honestly, it pisses me off.
If you are going to get pissed off about politics and polices, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing them.
We always had welfare programs, but years ago, they paid so little nobody could actually survive on them alone. Today, the amount of benefits collected by so-called poor families exceeds that of an average income earner.
It's like Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!"
So we are so concerned about the poor children that we load them up with SNAP's cards, school lunches, and allow them to buy crap food at the grocery store. The liberal solution by Moochelle Obama? Only sell them food they won't eat at school.
Yes, when wealthy people produce wealthy children and poor people produce poor children, there is a problem: we are letting the poor procreate on taxpayer money.
In 1980, I got my first apartment. I had a fascination for birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.
Spring came around and I got to meet my elderly neighbor. He looked up at my back porch and said "You know Ray, what you are doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing, but you may be bringing them more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter time is helpful because there is no food to be found. But leaving that thing up year round, the birds will soon become too dependent on it and forget how to obtain their own food. If you move or become disinterested in feeding the birds any longer, they will parish."
I always remembered the old mans words; not because of the birds, but later in life, I realized that's what government does with people: keep the feeder up year round.
Food stamps, free lunch, all that stuff is only provided in the winter time. When the summer comes, and their incomes increase, they don't get the benefits.
I mean here is a thought. If you want those people off the public dole DON'T PUNISH THEM when they make more money. That single "low-life" mom with three kids, if she takes a second job, she already probably has one, she pays something like EIGHTY CENTS for ever additional dollar she earns. She earns an extra dollar she loses food stamps, she losing the EITC, and she pays social security tax on that additional income.
The CBO calculates that her effective marginal tax rate would range from a modest 17% to a jaw-dropping 95% (see chart 1). If the prospect of keeping only five cents of each extra dollar earned does not discourage work, it is hard to imagine what might.
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...early-well-it-should-taxing-hard-up-americans
Which is what I've been saying all along: our government rewards people for being failures.
When you have a social system that penalizes success and rewards failure, how do you expect more successful people?
True story:
About a year and a half ago, one of my tenants became increasingly late with rent. So I invited them to my apartment to discuss the problem.
This was an unmarried couple with two children. Their 12 year old smoked, but couldn't work to support her habit, so they provided her with tobacco products. They had a large dog and three cats to boot. The father of the children believed that it was not worth his time to work more than 40 hours. She stayed home all day to "supposedly" home school their two children.
Since he didn't want to work more hours, and she stayed home all day, I suggested she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home to watch the kids. They could catch up on their rent and perhaps save for another used car since theirs was a rust bucket that didn't start half of the time.
They didn't even entertain my idea. Why? Because she got $250.00 a month for food stamps for the kids, and any income she created would work against that stipend.
Long story short, I had to evict them through the courts. Now he has a record of eviction which will be on his record for years to come. Why? Because she wanted to keep her food stamps.
My hypothetical example come to life. They are single because if they were married, they would not qualify for housing allowances, food stamps and whatever.
They also don't care that HE has an eviction on his credit rating, they'll get the next apartment on her record. If not that way, they'll work something else. I managed property for a short while in my 40+ years as a Realtor. God bless a good property manager. I reached the point where I turned all my rental properties over to a property manager. It was well worth the 10%. I am "certain" that there are groups of people who actually meet to give pointers to others on the best, most profitable way to game the government.
Sure you have a choice. Don't want to pay taxes, don't earn any income. After all, all you righties claim those that don't work have it made. So join them. I don't care. I encourage it.
With such a belief, we will always have lowlifes because we reward the procreation of them.
In most cases, a wealthy person will end up with wealthy children. An upper class family will usually end up with upper-class children. Middle-class people usually end up with middle-class children. There is nothing exceptional about the poor. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
In essence, what we are doing is paying poor people to produce more poor people. How is that any winning strategy? Wouldn't it make more sense to pay the middle-class or the wealthy to have more middle-class and wealthy children?
Eugenics? I never said government should tell people who can have kids and who shouldn't, but if you are going to live off of my money, I say we should have those requirements. I'm not asking of the poor anymore than we ask of the working. After all, when working people have enough children they can afford, what do they do? They make sure they can't have any more. I know plenty of working people that wished they could afford more kids, but they couldn't. Yet with lowlifes, they can have as many as they desire. How is that fair? After all, if you don't want to be fixed, then don't apply for government handouts. It's an option you know.
Look, when a wealthy person usually ends up with wealthy children and a poor person usually ends up with poor children, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.
My mom and dad were the classic across the railroad track marriage. Dad grew up dirt poor. Mom grew up fabulously wealthy. Dad and his siblings are all highly successful individuals. Mom never struck a lick in her life and her siblings were worthless. Now Dad and I control all that is left of what was once a huge estate that covered half the county.
Part of the problem. Children today get the benefit of HALF the percentage of federal outlays as they did when I was a kid. The damn parasitic boomer generation gets TWICE the benefit from federal outlays that their parents got. They have been sucking and sucking and sucking until damn near little is left and here you are, bitching and moaning about a itty bitty bit of food stamp spending by "lowlife" Moms. Honestly, it pisses me off.
If you are going to get pissed off about politics and polices, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing them.
We always had welfare programs, but years ago, they paid so little nobody could actually survive on them alone. Today, the amount of benefits collected by so-called poor families exceeds that of an average income earner.
It's like Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!"
So we are so concerned about the poor children that we load them up with SNAP's cards, school lunches, and allow them to buy crap food at the grocery store. The liberal solution by Moochelle Obama? Only sell them food they won't eat at school.
Yes, when wealthy people produce wealthy children and poor people produce poor children, there is a problem: we are letting the poor procreate on taxpayer money.
In 1980, I got my first apartment. I had a fascination for birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.
Spring came around and I got to meet my elderly neighbor. He looked up at my back porch and said "You know Ray, what you are doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing, but you may be bringing them more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter time is helpful because there is no food to be found. But leaving that thing up year round, the birds will soon become too dependent on it and forget how to obtain their own food. If you move or become disinterested in feeding the birds any longer, they will parish."
I always remembered the old mans words; not because of the birds, but later in life, I realized that's what government does with people: keep the feeder up year round.
Food stamps, free lunch, all that stuff is only provided in the winter time. When the summer comes, and their incomes increase, they don't get the benefits.
I mean here is a thought. If you want those people off the public dole DON'T PUNISH THEM when they make more money. That single "low-life" mom with three kids, if she takes a second job, she already probably has one, she pays something like EIGHTY CENTS for ever additional dollar she earns. She earns an extra dollar she loses food stamps, she losing the EITC, and she pays social security tax on that additional income.
The CBO calculates that her effective marginal tax rate would range from a modest 17% to a jaw-dropping 95% (see chart 1). If the prospect of keeping only five cents of each extra dollar earned does not discourage work, it is hard to imagine what might.
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...early-well-it-should-taxing-hard-up-americans
Which is what I've been saying all along: our government rewards people for being failures.
When you have a social system that penalizes success and rewards failure, how do you expect more successful people?
True story:
About a year and a half ago, one of my tenants became increasingly late with rent. So I invited them to my apartment to discuss the problem.
This was an unmarried couple with two children. Their 12 year old smoked, but couldn't work to support her habit, so they provided her with tobacco products. They had a large dog and three cats to boot. The father of the children believed that it was not worth his time to work more than 40 hours. She stayed home all day to "supposedly" home school their two children.
Since he didn't want to work more hours, and she stayed home all day, I suggested she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home to watch the kids. They could catch up on their rent and perhaps save for another used car since theirs was a rust bucket that didn't start half of the time.
They didn't even entertain my idea. Why? Because she got $250.00 a month for food stamps for the kids, and any income she created would work against that stipend.
Long story short, I had to evict them through the courts. Now he has a record of eviction which will be on his record for years to come. Why? Because she wanted to keep her food stamps.
Thanks for proving my point. If she went to work, what was she going to make? If she made three hundred dollars and lost two hundred and fifty, would they have got caught up with the rent? And would you be willing to work some overtime if you only got to keep twenty cents on the dollar?
Sure you have a choice. Don't want to pay taxes, don't earn any income. After all, all you righties claim those that don't work have it made. So join them. I don't care. I encourage it.
When we use the same kind of logic on you leftists, you get all bent out of shape. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't have an income. Okay, well if you can't afford to support your family, don't have children.
Look, when a wealthy person usually ends up with wealthy children and a poor person usually ends up with poor children, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.
My mom and dad were the classic across the railroad track marriage. Dad grew up dirt poor. Mom grew up fabulously wealthy. Dad and his siblings are all highly successful individuals. Mom never struck a lick in her life and her siblings were worthless. Now Dad and I control all that is left of what was once a huge estate that covered half the county.
Part of the problem. Children today get the benefit of HALF the percentage of federal outlays as they did when I was a kid. The damn parasitic boomer generation gets TWICE the benefit from federal outlays that their parents got. They have been sucking and sucking and sucking until damn near little is left and here you are, bitching and moaning about a itty bitty bit of food stamp spending by "lowlife" Moms. Honestly, it pisses me off.
If you are going to get pissed off about politics and polices, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing them.
We always had welfare programs, but years ago, they paid so little nobody could actually survive on them alone. Today, the amount of benefits collected by so-called poor families exceeds that of an average income earner.
It's like Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!"
So we are so concerned about the poor children that we load them up with SNAP's cards, school lunches, and allow them to buy crap food at the grocery store. The liberal solution by Moochelle Obama? Only sell them food they won't eat at school.
Yes, when wealthy people produce wealthy children and poor people produce poor children, there is a problem: we are letting the poor procreate on taxpayer money.
In 1980, I got my first apartment. I had a fascination for birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.
Spring came around and I got to meet my elderly neighbor. He looked up at my back porch and said "You know Ray, what you are doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing, but you may be bringing them more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter time is helpful because there is no food to be found. But leaving that thing up year round, the birds will soon become too dependent on it and forget how to obtain their own food. If you move or become disinterested in feeding the birds any longer, they will parish."
I always remembered the old mans words; not because of the birds, but later in life, I realized that's what government does with people: keep the feeder up year round.
Food stamps, free lunch, all that stuff is only provided in the winter time. When the summer comes, and their incomes increase, they don't get the benefits.
I mean here is a thought. If you want those people off the public dole DON'T PUNISH THEM when they make more money. That single "low-life" mom with three kids, if she takes a second job, she already probably has one, she pays something like EIGHTY CENTS for ever additional dollar she earns. She earns an extra dollar she loses food stamps, she losing the EITC, and she pays social security tax on that additional income.
The CBO calculates that her effective marginal tax rate would range from a modest 17% to a jaw-dropping 95% (see chart 1). If the prospect of keeping only five cents of each extra dollar earned does not discourage work, it is hard to imagine what might.
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...early-well-it-should-taxing-hard-up-americans
Which is what I've been saying all along: our government rewards people for being failures.
When you have a social system that penalizes success and rewards failure, how do you expect more successful people?
True story:
About a year and a half ago, one of my tenants became increasingly late with rent. So I invited them to my apartment to discuss the problem.
This was an unmarried couple with two children. Their 12 year old smoked, but couldn't work to support her habit, so they provided her with tobacco products. They had a large dog and three cats to boot. The father of the children believed that it was not worth his time to work more than 40 hours. She stayed home all day to "supposedly" home school their two children.
Since he didn't want to work more hours, and she stayed home all day, I suggested she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home to watch the kids. They could catch up on their rent and perhaps save for another used car since theirs was a rust bucket that didn't start half of the time.
They didn't even entertain my idea. Why? Because she got $250.00 a month for food stamps for the kids, and any income she created would work against that stipend.
Long story short, I had to evict them through the courts. Now he has a record of eviction which will be on his record for years to come. Why? Because she wanted to keep her food stamps.
Thanks for proving my point. If she went to work, what was she going to make? If she made three hundred dollars and lost two hundred and fifty, would they have got caught up with the rent? And would you be willing to work some overtime if you only got to keep twenty cents on the dollar?
If she got a job at Walmart or McDonald's and worked ten hours each day, that's 100 hours a month. Even if those jobs only paid $8.00 an hour, that's $800.00 gross a month.
If you are going to get pissed off about politics and polices, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing them.
We always had welfare programs, but years ago, they paid so little nobody could actually survive on them alone. Today, the amount of benefits collected by so-called poor families exceeds that of an average income earner.
It's like Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!"
So we are so concerned about the poor children that we load them up with SNAP's cards, school lunches, and allow them to buy crap food at the grocery store. The liberal solution by Moochelle Obama? Only sell them food they won't eat at school.
Yes, when wealthy people produce wealthy children and poor people produce poor children, there is a problem: we are letting the poor procreate on taxpayer money.
In 1980, I got my first apartment. I had a fascination for birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.
Spring came around and I got to meet my elderly neighbor. He looked up at my back porch and said "You know Ray, what you are doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing, but you may be bringing them more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter time is helpful because there is no food to be found. But leaving that thing up year round, the birds will soon become too dependent on it and forget how to obtain their own food. If you move or become disinterested in feeding the birds any longer, they will parish."
I always remembered the old mans words; not because of the birds, but later in life, I realized that's what government does with people: keep the feeder up year round.
Food stamps, free lunch, all that stuff is only provided in the winter time. When the summer comes, and their incomes increase, they don't get the benefits.
I mean here is a thought. If you want those people off the public dole DON'T PUNISH THEM when they make more money. That single "low-life" mom with three kids, if she takes a second job, she already probably has one, she pays something like EIGHTY CENTS for ever additional dollar she earns. She earns an extra dollar she loses food stamps, she losing the EITC, and she pays social security tax on that additional income.
The CBO calculates that her effective marginal tax rate would range from a modest 17% to a jaw-dropping 95% (see chart 1). If the prospect of keeping only five cents of each extra dollar earned does not discourage work, it is hard to imagine what might.
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...early-well-it-should-taxing-hard-up-americans
Which is what I've been saying all along: our government rewards people for being failures.
When you have a social system that penalizes success and rewards failure, how do you expect more successful people?
True story:
About a year and a half ago, one of my tenants became increasingly late with rent. So I invited them to my apartment to discuss the problem.
This was an unmarried couple with two children. Their 12 year old smoked, but couldn't work to support her habit, so they provided her with tobacco products. They had a large dog and three cats to boot. The father of the children believed that it was not worth his time to work more than 40 hours. She stayed home all day to "supposedly" home school their two children.
Since he didn't want to work more hours, and she stayed home all day, I suggested she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home to watch the kids. They could catch up on their rent and perhaps save for another used car since theirs was a rust bucket that didn't start half of the time.
They didn't even entertain my idea. Why? Because she got $250.00 a month for food stamps for the kids, and any income she created would work against that stipend.
Long story short, I had to evict them through the courts. Now he has a record of eviction which will be on his record for years to come. Why? Because she wanted to keep her food stamps.
Thanks for proving my point. If she went to work, what was she going to make? If she made three hundred dollars and lost two hundred and fifty, would they have got caught up with the rent? And would you be willing to work some overtime if you only got to keep twenty cents on the dollar?
If she got a job at Walmart or McDonald's and worked ten hours each day, that's 100 hours a month. Even if those jobs only paid $8.00 an hour, that's $800.00 gross a month.
Gross eight hundred dollars. Lose two hundred fifty dollars food stamps. Lose at least a hundred dollars a month in the EITC. Pays another seventy five in Social Security taxes and eighty dollars in income taxes. That leaves her with a little less than three hundred dollars. Would you work ten hours a day, two days a week, to bring home seventy five bucks? How do you feel about a 62.5% marginal tax rate?
Sure you have a choice. Don't want to pay taxes, don't earn any income. After all, all you righties claim those that don't work have it made. So join them. I don't care. I encourage it.
When we use the same kind of logic on you leftists, you get all bent out of shape. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't have an income. Okay, well if you can't afford to support your family, don't have children.
But with those food stamps, they can AFFORD to have children. And rather you like it or not, we need more children. Without the immigration that you and others often cry about this nation would be dying out.
Immigration Is the Only Reason the U.S. Doesn't Have an Aging Crisis
Like I said. If someone qualifies for food stamps they have a RESPONSIBILITY to get them. Just like a CEO whose company qualifies for tax credits. But let's run with that same kind of logic.
If you can't afford your mortgage without the mortgage interest deduction, get a smaller house or rent. Why should I have to help you pay your mortgage?
If you can't afford that Prius without the tax credit, buy a different car. Why should I have to help pay for your car.
If a company can't fund their research department without the tax credits, close down the department, why should I fund research that expands their profits?
If you can't afford to fund your 401K with aftertax dollars, don't fund it.
We could go on all day. The two biggest tax expenditures in the federal budget are the mortgage interest deduction and the employer provided health insurance credit. I have no doubt that many on this very board, you included, have derived more benefit from just the mortgage interest deduction than that single lowlife mom on food stamps will get in a lifetime.
My 21 year old son is closing on his first house next week. He got a fifteen thousand dollar first time home buyer grant. He will pay over ten thousand dollars in interest in the first year and take the mortgage interest deduction. He puts twelve percent of his salary into his 401K. And god only knows what his gold plated company funded health insurance premium is. The total cost of the tax expenditures he will receive in ONE YEAR could fund that lowlife Mom's food stamps for TEN YEARS. And at 21, well he is making significantly more than the US median income of $52,000.
Like I said, complaining about food stamps is like complaining about an open window after a tornado ripped off the roof of your house.
