Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Redistribution-the REAL problem

Posted by notto (My Page) on
Fri, Sep 21, 12 at 15:26

While we are all discussiing which way to redistribute the tax money, or the wealth, the politicians continue to do their thing-NOTHING.

They are watching people draw lines in the sand and call themselves Republicans or Democrats. Meanwhile, the situation in the US is status quo-people are hurting, and are underemployed or unemployed....

Instead of creating Tea Parties, Occupying Wallsteet, what people need to do is write to their represenatives TO CHANGE THE LAWS IN THE US REGARDING J-O-B-S.
1) ANY MFG who gets government help i.e. loans, or susidies, whatever, they MUST mfg ALL their stuff in the US.
2) Military-ALL things must be made in the US, as it is the US dollars.
3) TAX codes need to be changed to be fair, and less write-offs.

Watch the jobs spring up, without redistributing money.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Notto, love the fact that Congress has adjourned yet again! The earliest recess in 50 years! Also to note is that the Senate has worked 4 Fridays in the last 4 years and the House 12 Fridays in the last 4 years.....


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

3 is rather vague. But I agree with the rest. I'm not interested in paying any more taxes. As long as it coming from upper income and corporations, I'm on board.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

As long as someone pays more and not you it's okay?

That's what I don't get.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

"As long as someone pays more and not you it's okay? "

"That's what I don't get. "

But Demi it is exactly what you espouse. You don't want to pay more but you want others to pay more.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

No, it's just their turn demi. That's all. I don't want them to have to foot the entire bill, just help.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

"You don't want to pay more but you want others to pay more."

I don't want to pay MORE until:

(a) money isn't squandered and wasted and stolen
(b) EVERYONE shares in contributing SOMETHING.

If that happens, I likely won't have to pay more.

You're darned right I want people that don't pay a DIME in federal income tax to pay "more" because right now they don't pay anything--NADA ZIP.

Rob, I understand, everyone should have to help foot the bill. BOTH ends AND the middle and everyone in between.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

"You're darned right I want people that don't pay a DIME in federal income tax to pay "more" because right now they don't pay anything--NADA ZIP. "

Demi, I'll ask you what I asked nik.

Do you believe that seniors living on their SS should pay income tax on it?

Do you believe that students earning amounts like 5K a year towards their education should pay income tax on that 5K?

Do you believe that soldiers in combat should pay income tax?

Do you believe that the Earned Income tax credit, introduced by Republicans to keep the minimum wage low for their corporate buddies, should be eliminated?

These are the people that make up the lions share of the infamous 47%.

If you do then you are absolutely right to support Romney who calls these people victims, who thinks they believe they are entitled to government handouts and apparently thinks they should pay more in taxes while he cuts the taxes of millionaires.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

"Demi, I'll ask you what I asked nik.

Do you believe that seniors living on their SS should pay income tax on it?"

PERHAPS

"Do you believe that students earning amounts like 5K a year towards their education should pay income tax on that 5K?"

YES

"Do you believe that soldiers in combat should pay income tax?"

YES

"Do you believe that the Earned Income tax credit, introduced by Republicans to keep the minimum wage low for their corporate buddies, should be eliminated?"

YES


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Then, I have questions. The student earnings issue. If it's a scholarship? Or loan? Because they already pay interest on the loan, that should satisfy an additional amount towards helping. Scholarships? Don't you think they should be allowed to have it all since they've earned it based on their "specialness"? I'm less certain of tax on that.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

demi - I give you credit for answering the questions. I obviously do not agree with your answers, but at least you answered and gave your opinion. Unlike some others that were asked and did not answer.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

I respect you for being honest with your answers.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Demi, what I'm always curious about is that for apparently quite a few years you didn't pay taxes yourself, having married a wealthy man and raised children on that one salary.

How do you propose people in that situation, who belong to the 47% who don't pay taxes, should pay -- with no actual income from which to derive that tax? You are a big advocate of making absolutely every citizen pay taxes, whether they have an income or live on annuities/welfare/royalties/dividends -- I'm seriously curious how you would propose to make people in this position 'put skin in the game', as you've phrased it a number of times?


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Why stop there? Why not allow anyone earning half a mil or more annually to walk away from state and fed tax free, but make sure to push the entire burden on the old folks, the poor, and students. Shouldn't any category that doesn't include your own pay more?

I couldn't help but notice that you aren't sure about persons in the retirement category, who would be collecting Social Security, a category that would most likely include yourself... very interesting...


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Posted by circuspeanut 5 (My Page) on
Fri, Sep 21, 12 at 17:15

Demi, what I'm always curious about is that for apparently quite a few years you didn't pay taxes yourself, having married a wealthy man and raised children on that one salary.

*

I would say you can't make this stuff up, but you do.

Not that it's any of your business, but I DID NOT marry a wealthy man. We both came from rural families and our fathers were dirt poor as in going barefoot to school.

I have never said I was wealthy, where do you get this?

I have said that we saved and he saved before I met him, since he was a teenager, and we sacrificed and lived below our means and saved for our retirement.

I have said that I don't think people should pay any more in taxes until the money we do pay is respected and not squandered, wasted, and stolen.

I have said that everyone should pay something--yes, the 47%, even if it's a nominal amount, because everyone should contribute. It's no big deal to implement--you just have to file a return even if you pay the nominal amount.

Jodik, the reason I said "perhaps" on the social security has nothing to do with my own situation--we did not factor social security benefits into our retirement situation because we figured the government would continue to spend money they didn't have and we could not depend on his 40+ years of paying into the system.

Imagine that.

(By the way--correction, I did not pay social security the entire time I worked, part of that time was federal government employment. Most was private employment.)

The "perhaps" comes into the inequity of who pays taxes on their social security--if everyone did, I would be for it.

If there were deductions for some and not others, then I would not agree with that.

That inequity across the board has nothing to do with me receiving any social security benefits.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Jodik--that same "social security" category would most likely include yourself, as much as it would me.

Neither of us are obviously eligible to collect.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

I pay both federal and state taxes on my Social Security. Some states don't require a tax on SS benefits; Minnesota does.

And the reason: one is subject to pay federal taxes on Social Security benefits if you file a federal tax return as an individual and your total income is more than $25,000. If filing a joint return, you will have to pay taxes if you and your spouse have a total income of more than $32,000.

That seems to be as "across the board" as can be possible for anyone not falling under either category.

I've always paid taxes; I've never minded paying taxes; I'm grateful I can afford to pay my taxes. I don't begrudge anyone who might benefit in the larger scheme of things from my paying taxes.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

I've never minded paying taxes; I'm grateful I can afford to pay my taxes. I don't begrudge anyone who might benefit in the larger scheme of things from my paying taxes.

Me too. And, liberals that I've talked with about this issue say the same. I wonder if there are conservatives that feel this way?

Any time I have had a big tax bill, I never grumbled as it was an indication that I made more money than usual. So, why should I complain? Taxes are the cost of living in this great country, one of opportunity.

Those that don't want to pay taxes could become citizens of and go live in Bangledesh, I guess. Don't see anyone doing that. They want what this country provides but don't want to pay for it. Gee, that sounds a lot like the 47% Romney was denigrating.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

So, if college kids who get a scholarship should pay taxes on that, then why shouldn't kids who have their parents pay for their school have to pay some sort of gift tax on that as well?

Seriously, this is an issue with kids going to expensive schools - if the tuition/room and board is $50,000, and a kid - you know, the kind that went to school barefoot and got straight 'A's and earned an academic scholarship - gets grants and scholarships worth $45,000, works part time for the rest, should pay tax on all of it? At the rate of a single person?

But its ok - no taxes at all - if you're folks are rich and can fork over the $50,000 every year.

/class warfare? what class warfare?


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on Fri, Sep 21, 12 at 16:26

"Do you believe that the Earned Income tax credit, introduced by Republicans to keep the minimum wage low for their corporate buddies, should be eliminated?"

This question puzzles me, based on what President Clinton said in his autobiography. See below:

Reagan's Liberal Legacy
What the new literature on the Gipper won't tell you.

By Joshua Green

Joshua Green is an editor of The Washington Monthly.

"...When Reagan's conservative acting chief economic adviser, William Niskanen, was apprised of the plan he replied, "Walter Mondale would have been proud."

So would Russell Long. In 1975, the Democratic senator from Louisiana had passed into law the earned income tax credit (EITC), essentially a wage subsidy for the working poor. Long's measure was tiny to begin with and had dwindled to insignificance by the time Reagan agreed to expand it in 1986 as part of the tax reform act. Despite years of opposing social insurance programs, Reagan's support of the EITC gave rise to what has become one of the most effective antipoverty measures the federal government has ever devised--by the late 1990s, the EITC was lifting 4.3 million people out of poverty every year. Reagan's decision to expand it was "the most important anti-poverty measure enacted over the past decade," wrote The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt. The exemption of millions of low-wage earners from income taxes through the EITC and other reforms in 1986 added a significant measure of progressivity to the tax code. As evidence of its popularity with liberals, Clinton dramatically expanded the EITC in 1993."

_______________________

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

For Immediate Release January 12, 2000

PRESIDENT CLINTON PROPOSES TO EXPAND THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE REWARD FOR WORK AND FAMILY

"Today President Clinton Will Announce, in his Address to the Democratic Leadership Council, A New $21 Billion Plan to Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit -- A Key Part of His "New Opportunity Agenda." The President�s proposal would expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to provide tax relief for 6.4 million hard-pressed working families. The expansion will cost about $21 billion over 10 years."


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

And your point would be???.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Feel free to help us expand our understanding of the EITC, chase. Give us a link to your source so we can confirm your claims. Thanks!


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Why would I bother when neither of you ever respond to direct questions.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Problem is people don't want their taxes used to pay welfare cheats and illegal aliens. I don't know anyone who doesn't want to pay taxes except those who think they were put on this earth only to take from others including the government. When you can show me the good people, i.e., seniors who are struggling to pay their energy bills every month, that are benefiting from all those taxes then maybe you'd have a different response from the tax payers who are fed up with this system of inequality for all, not the other way around.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Posted by elvis 4b WI (My Page) on Fri, Sep 21, 12 at 20:05

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on Fri, Sep 21, 12 at 16:26
"Do you believe that the Earned Income tax credit, introduced by Republicans to keep the minimum wage low for their corporate buddies, should be eliminated?"

This question puzzles me, based on what President Clinton said in his autobiography. See below:

Reagan's Liberal Legacy
What the new literature on the Gipper won't tell you.

By Joshua Green

Joshua Green is an editor of The Washington Monthly.

"...When Reagan's conservative acting chief economic adviser, William Niskanen, was apprised of the plan he replied, "Walter Mondale would have been proud."

So would Russell Long. In 1975, the Democratic senator from Louisiana had passed into law the earned income tax credit (EITC), essentially a wage subsidy for the working poor. Long's measure was tiny to begin with and had dwindled to insignificance by the time Reagan agreed to expand it in 1986 as part of the tax reform act. Despite years of opposing social insurance programs, Reagan's support of the EITC gave rise to what has become one of the most effective antipoverty measures the federal government has ever devised--by the late 1990s, the EITC was lifting 4.3 million people out of poverty every year. Reagan's decision to expand it was "the most important anti-poverty measure enacted over the past decade," wrote The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt. The exemption of millions of low-wage earners from income taxes through the EITC and other reforms in 1986 added a significant measure of progressivity to the tax code. As evidence of its popularity with liberals, Clinton dramatically expanded the EITC in 1993."

_______________________

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

For Immediate Release January 12, 2000

PRESIDENT CLINTON PROPOSES TO EXPAND THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE REWARD FOR WORK AND FAMILY

"Today President Clinton Will Announce, in his Address to the Democratic Leadership Council, A New $21 Billion Plan to Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit -- A Key Part of His "New Opportunity Agenda." The President�s proposal would expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to provide tax relief for 6.4 million hard-pressed working families. The expansion will cost about $21 billion over 10 years."

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on Fri, Sep 21, 12 at 21:27

"And your point would be???."

___________________

Not "would be"; IS. My point IS that you stated that the "Earned Income tax credit" was "introduced by Republicans to keep the minimum wage low for their corporate buddies"

Based upon what I've read about President Clinton, your information didn't seem true to me. So I looked up some sourced information to show, since I didn't want to hunt around in that 900+ page autobiography for it. It would appear, based on the information I have provided, that it was not only introduced into law, for the benefit of working low income people, by a Democrat, it was such a benefit (a good idea) to these folks that subsequently both a Republican and a Democratic president sought to improve on this tax advantage for the working citizens even more.

So your statement in this regard didn't make sense to me; hence my comment, that's my point. That is my answer to your question.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

redistribution isn't that what keeps the state of Louisiana going GG?


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

A distraction from my post--Waiting for Chase's response.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

All this is a distraction from my post, where I'm asking if some poor kids who get an academic scholarship to Harvard should have to pay income tax on the $55,000, but if Daddy Warbucks sends Jr. to the same school, shouldn't he have to pay a gift tax?


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

I don't think anyone should pay income tax on a scholarship as long as the money goes directly to the school and is used exclusively for the purpose for which it was intended; same as having your tuition paid for by a private party. Presumably the tax was paid on that $$ when it was earned.

I don't believe that at this point, sales tax is charged for college tuition or room & board. I'm certain you will correct me if I am wrong about that.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

"Waiting for Chase's response."

Sorry Elvis but staying up past my bedtime to respond to you is not on my play list.

I will correct what I said. I should have said INCREASED by Republicans in order to keep the minimum wage low. If you think that Republican Congresses increased the EITC out of the goodness of their hearts to help out that poor struggling worker ......be my guest.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

"Why would I bother when neither of you ever respond to direct questions."

Has zip to do with anyone in particular. You made a specific claim to everyone, but can't back it up. It sounded bogus to me, because I recall learning a long time ago that the EITC was very effective as an incentive to keep folks working and allowing them to take home a bigger pay check. Very liberal professors were very enthused about the EITC. Your claim flies in the face of what I was taught.

We may disagree a lot, but I don't worry you're making up stuff when I read something you've posted. I was just wondering if you had a source to share, or if perhaps you could have misunderstood what you heard. No way to evaluate your claims without more information from you.

"I will correct what I said. I should have said INCREASED by Republicans in order to keep the minimum wage low."

News to me. My liberal professors in a very liberal department never mentioned that. Do you have a source?

"If you think that Republican Congresses increased the EITC out of the goodness of their hearts to help out that poor struggling worker ......be my guest."

I don't understand. The Canadian government has no programs to encourage your poor, struggling workers to stay in the workplace? What alternatives do you have to offer?



 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

I have said that everyone should pay something--yes, the 47%, even if it's a nominal amount, because everyone should contribute. It's no big deal to implement--you just have to file a return even if you pay the nominal amount.

So what should that nominal amount be for people who have 0 income, like stay-at-home spouses, and where should that money come from?


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

"I've always paid taxes; I've never minded paying taxes; I'm grateful I can afford to pay my taxes. I don't begrudge anyone who might benefit in the larger scheme of things from my paying taxes."

Exactly... this is the price of living in a free society with extras like police, firefighters, roads, sidewalks, schools, parks, public transportation, public safety nets, emergency services, and those other goodies we call infrastructure.

I think if it bothers some folks that badly, they should close their eyes and imagine that the share THEY pay goes to the system of their choice. That way, the apoplexy exhibited would stop. Good grief!


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Circuspeanut, there are different laws in different states concerning community property, as well as the choice as to whether individuals file "married filing joint returns", or "married filing separate tax returns", so there is no "one" answer to your question about the source, or "where should that money come from" in regard to "stay at home" spouses.

It's a legal matter, but yes, anyone with income, including entitlement income, should pay some tax in my opinion.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Hilarious. Referring ro Chase's bogus statement about the EITC.

Chase makes a bogus claim, her "pack" wishes to change the subject--quickly! When a Conservative makes a claim they don't back up with lib-approved sources, they are quickly attacked by the lib "pack".

Just admit you are wrong, Chase. I certainly don't expect you to be an expert on U.S, tax code--unless of course, you say you are. I'm sure not an expert; just happened to be on the second to lasr page of "My Life", and the EITC reference jumped right out at me.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

I don't believe that at this point, sales tax is charged for college tuition or room & board. I'm certain you will correct me if I am wrong about that.

No sales tax is not collected on tuition or room and board.

Its Demi who believes that college students should pay Federal Income tax, and I'm asking if that includes scholarships to Harvard, which are worth $50,000 a year.

Hollering for the taxation of children - you know, the ones in the detestable 47% moocher class, is so far out there in La-La Libertarian land, I thought it worth exploring.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

David--let me be more clear.

If a "scholarship" for tuition comes in the form of actually being paid by a third party, then no, I don't agree to income taxes. If the scholarship comes in the form of a cash payment to the recipient, then yes.

As to your other observation, there already exists IRS regulations regarding the amount of gifts of cash to family members before they are taxed.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

But Demi-people sending their kids to college get deductions for the money spent(and well spent I might add)but the kids who work hard and get scholarships should pay? That is fuzzy thinking.

I do not believe that everyone should pay some taxes because I dont want people to have to chose between eating and taxes and when you look at many of the people who dont pay taxes they dont make enough money to live on. What do they give up to pay this "nominal sum" that is going to cost more to process than it is worth so they can be morally pure in the eyes of conservatives?

.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Problem is people don't want their taxes used to pay welfare cheats and illegal aliens.

I don't want them used to kill innocent people in Iraq and pay defense contractors in the Middle East, give subsidies to oil companies, pay for tax cuts to millionaires so that they can get a 15% tax rate on investment income ....

Far more of my money has gone to those 3 things in the last 10 years than it ever went to welfare cheats and illegal aliens.

Go after the BIG money.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

So lets continue on here, and go with the Ryan Budget plan that will severely restrict Pell grants, which go to low-income kids who want to attend college. These reductions will help compensate for the loss of revenue when capital gains and dividends are no longer taxed, eg 'respecting the job creators'.

So now we have the folks at the top of the income ladder, the ones who already fork over the $55,000 a year for a top college, getting a huge tax break on their income, thus making sending their kids to Harvard way easier, while the poor kid, who needed the Pell Grant to attend college, will either go into debt or settle for East Podunk Community College.

/now with online classes

//Study from Home and earn your degree in the exciting and dynamic field of Cosmetology.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Time to go through the whole spiel about those nasty, good-for-nothing alternatives to a very expensive college education. Ready.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

So lets continue on here, and go with the Ryan Budget plan that will severely restrict Pell grants, which go to low-income kids who want to attend college. These reductions will help compensate for the loss of revenue when capital gains and dividends are no longer taxed, eg 'respecting the job creators'.

So now we have the folks at the top of the income ladder, the ones who already fork over the $55,000 a year for a top college, getting a huge tax break on their income, thus making sending their kids to Harvard way easier, while the poor kid, who needed the Pell Grant to attend college, will either go into debt or settle for East Podunk Community College.

Yes. Favouring the fortunate children, at the expense of other children, of course. Then again. They're all losers anyway.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

Again, this is a mindset I can't even fathom... favoring those who's material worth has placed them in a certain "class". As far as I'm concerned, no one is better than anyone else... and those who think of themselves as being in a higher class have placed themselves there. This is not a monarchy. Class is self-inflicted. I certainly don't feel lower than anyone else.

And yet, we have people like Romney, who feel they're above the masses, and would tilt the scales of equal opportunity even further toward favoring those with accumulated wealth. How unfair is that?

It's even worse when we talk about children. A college grant could mean all the difference in the world.

Who died and changed christian values to include excluding anyone without accumulated wealth? We really need to get back to a level playing field.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

I don't understand how Rhomney thinks he will win by complaining that the poor and the middle class do not pay any taxes, that they are free loaders and should get personal responsibility and pay more in taxes.

He doesn't have a clue who or what he is talking about when he uses the 47% figure. Many elderly, retired and sick people including veterans rely on "entitlements." Food stamps and welfare have increased because Bush Crashed the economy. Same goes for the persistent unemployment problem as many construction workers , especially older ones, are having a rough time finding jobs and have limited or no job mobility at their age.

The poor pay plenty in sales tax, liquor and tobacco tax, and pay real estate tax directly or indirectly through rent. People pay license fees, tolls and any number or government fees in addition to that and they do add up for a poor family.

A lot of people are struggling to make it right now. Romney's message was a game changer in this election because it cemented the impression that people already had of him as an out of touch, filthy rich, arrogant, @hole.
He is what he is.


 o
RE: Redistribution-the REAL problem

You must admit, Heri, it's a tactic we haven't seen used before... alienate your constituents to garner votes! ;-)


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here