|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 14:55:34 GMT -5
Yes, let's do it. They are paying less now than they did in the 90s. Rich people are saying to tax them more. Gates, Buffet, but I'm guessing because they are liberal that it doesn't matter that they say that. We can't go the Orrin Hatch way of the poor and middle class having to pay even more. They are barely making it as it is and we want to add more to their plate because we can't go back to the Clinton era tax rates for the rich because that's socialism or some bullpoop. would you still think it would be right to tax the rich more if i told you that their contributions to federal taxes ALREADY equaled out to more than half of that pot? Yes because I would need proof other than you saying it. We need to close tax loopholes that cost our economy billions of dollars. The rich can store their money else where and avoid taxes. We need to stop that. We need to collect on that money.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 14:58:21 GMT -5
Until 'Obamacare' was passed, insurance companies didn't have to cover you if you had a pre-exisitng condition so those people were ed. Why should they have to? People seem to forget that insurance is a business. They're betting on your health. It's sick, I know, but that's what it is. They're saying, "I don't think you're going to get sick" and you're saying, "I bet you I do..." That's the bottom line. But regardless, there should be no reason that people have to worry about this "pre-existing condition" nonsense if they have been covered since birth. Unfortunately, there are people who were not covered since birth that are in tough economic situations because of medical situations. These people are certainly the exception and not the rule, however. We've been over this time and time again, though, and the problem (more than anything else) is that the price for medical services and medication have gone up so exponentially that almost no one can afford it without insurance. By just providing medical coverage to people with government money, we are masking the problem, not eliminating it. The biggest reason prices have gone up so much? You guessed it - government interference. Don't believe me? Check the price charts and then look at when the government started getting involved. What other major bills did you have that you could live on $9 an hour? Car payment? Rent/mortgage? Grocery? I used money I saved up in high school to buy my first car. It wasn't great, but it was okay. I also had a car insurance bill, minor grocery bills, and split rent. Again, it comes down to personal responsibility. The minute I decide, "I cannot afford to have my own car" is the day I sell it and stop paying for insurance while purchasing a bike or taking the bus at a vastly discounted rate. If I decide I cannot pay for my rent, I find another renter to help pay for the space and/or I find a cheaper place to live. I don't say, "OH GOVERNMENT, PLEASE GIVE ME THINGS! HOWEVER WILL I DO WITHOUT YOU, OH HOLY ONE OF ALL THAT IS GREAT AND GOOD IN THE WORLD!?" We can say it, doesn't mean it's right to say it. You and Hulk seem to be under the impression that people don't struggle to make ends meet so they can't always save or that they have a ton of extra money to be doing all these things you want people to do with their money. If you do understand that they struggle then you blame them for struggling because they should be better off some how. Yes, I blame about 99% of adults (and/or give credit to them) for their own financial situations. This is because I am under the impression that part of being an adult is taking responsibility for your own actions. I'm happy that you can afford all those things. Not everyone can and for some reason you are blaming those people for not being able to afford those things. Yes, I am blaming them for not making wise decisions with their money or trying to better their situation. There ARE jobs that are available to people which can help them provide for themselves and their family. Even if it means being a janitor at a school, working the drive-through at McDonalds, stocking shelves at Wal-Mart or doing mindless construction jobs; there ARE jobs available. If you make more than $9/hr. and cannot provide for yourself, then you are not wisely spending your money. If I did it at age 18, anyone can. So if someone later can't have it then someone now can't have it? What kind of logic is that? It makes perfect fiscal sense. If I have $5 and something costs $10, then I can't buy that something. I'm a legitimate person so I don't take the extra $5 from someone else and leave them with nothing. If we can't afford to pay for someone's social security now (which we can't), then why should we be running a debt which will affect future people who will never see it themselves AND are now being forced to pay for the dumbass people before them that didn't see this coming.? Great attitude to have. Let's throw these people away because they can't work. That is just disgusting. If they are mentally unable to function in society, then they should be placed somewhere that can help them. Giving them money and pretending that they're going to spend it intelligently is the "disgusting" thing. I have an uncle who is given money every month and he spends it like a ing idiot because he is only SLIGHTLY mentally handicapped. I can't imagine what happens when someone who is more seriously mentally handicapped gets money. I am sick of that argument "Why should I have to pay for them." How much do you actually pay for them to do that? I'm guessing it is a few pennies or even less. Here, I'll mail you two cents to pay for them. You are acting like it's some huge financial burden on you for those people to get social security. I paid over $600 in taxes on my last check alone. Can you mail me $600? I know, you hate government, everything it stands for and how it helps people. That's not going to change, no matter who is in power. Ron Paul could be President tomorrow and it wouldn't happen, no matter how long he was in office. This country will continue to help people much to your chagrin. So instead of just saying no to helping which is not realistic, let's find a way to make the system better. This country cannot physically continue to "help people" at the rate it's currently going. If you want to believe that it can by just continuing to go further and further into debt, then yeah, by all means. Go ahead and keep believing it. But anyone who has even the smallest bit of understanding of how economies work will tell you that this cannot continue. We will have a MASSIVE depression because of this extraordinary spending. This isn't a projection, it's a promise.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 14:59:56 GMT -5
How can other countries do it and we can't and don't give me the 'we have too many people' argument. That's not an excuse. Because they don't frivolously spend Trillions of dollars on other pointless shit.
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Jul 26, 2011 15:06:45 GMT -5
would you still think it would be right to tax the rich more if i told you that their contributions to federal taxes ALREADY equaled out to more than half of that pot? Yes because I would need proof other than you saying it. We need to close tax loopholes that cost our economy billions of dollars. The rich can store their money else where and avoid taxes. We need to stop that. We need to collect on that money. factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/if you scroll down to the bottom of that article, there is a section entitled "Who Pays". that section cites the Congressional Budget Office's most recent data which states that the top 10% of income earners paid 55% of all federal taxes, including income, payroll, excise, and corporate income taxes. i agree any tax loopholes need to be fixed. however i dont think that saying tax the rich more is the answer to our problems. the issue seems much too comprehensive for that.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 15:09:51 GMT -5
So they shouldn't be covered. Then you can't complain and say they should have had health insurance when a medical emergency comes up. So in order for people to not be in ruin due to not having health insurance because of a pre-exisitng condition is to hope (some how before they are born) that their parents got them coverage when they were born. That's ing terrible and I hope you know that. No one says that and that's a lame thing that people against government say that those who are on government assistance say. It doesn't have to do with taking responsibility and you are missing that. When you have people who worked white collar jobs competing with high school drop outs for a gig at McDonalds, something is wrong. Actually, I think McDonalds requires a high school diploma now so those drop outs are ed as well. That is a terrible argument. I did it so they can. that. That argument doesn't fit what I said. You said if we can't have SS then people now shouldn't have it. That'd be like, well you can't have your dinner because someone else can't have it later. It wouldn't be your $10 example. They are going to spend it on their rent, their groceries, their medicine. Why do you assume everyone who gets Social Security isn't using it for those purproses? Why do you assume they are all out buying expensive luxury items or what have you? How much of that $600 is supposed to be for you? A lot of people aren't getting $600 in their pay check and you expect them to save and afford all of this stuff that is necessary and if they can't, you think they are bums. That is a terrible mentatlity to have. We can't help people at the current rate because people refuse to do anything that will make that help sustainable. They'd rather get rid of the help than figure out a way to save it.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 15:12:21 GMT -5
Reality is that there are times in life when you are just ed no matter what you do. You're just ed. You fail. You fall flat on your face. You might as well be a no-name jobber getting in the ring with Triple H. You reek of fail and you have no chance whatsoever. What matters is how you deal with that. Our government has taken away that failure. You can sit there, decide you are a failure in life and spend the rest of your life eating off food stamps and living in government housing and the feds will take care of you. That is a complete sham. It's how you deal with that failure that defines your character. If I had the chance to opt out of Social Security I would and wouldn't think twice. The system is ridiculously flawed. How can other countries do it and we can't and don't give me the 'we have too many people' argument. That's not an excuse. Other countries use different systems and/or they've got different ratios of workers/retired workers.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 15:15:38 GMT -5
Yes because I would need proof other than you saying it. We need to close tax loopholes that cost our economy billions of dollars. The rich can store their money else where and avoid taxes. We need to stop that. We need to collect on that money. factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/if you scroll down to the bottom of that article, there is a section entitled "Who Pays". that section cites the Congressional Budget Office's most recent data which states that the top 10% of income earners paid 55% of all federal taxes, including income, payroll, excise, and corporate income taxes. i agree any tax loopholes need to be fixed. however i dont think that saying tax the rich more is the answer to our problems. the issue seems much too comprehensive for that. We can't have it both ways. When the CBO says one thing, one group says they are terrible and we shouldn't rely on their numbers. But then when they say something the group likes, they praise the CBO. I wish we had recent numbers to look at as that chart is from 2007.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 15:17:25 GMT -5
How can other countries do it and we can't and don't give me the 'we have too many people' argument. That's not an excuse. Other countries use different systems and/or they've got different ratios of workers/retired workers. Maybe we should try those other systems but of course you'll have the folks screaming socialism.
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Jul 26, 2011 15:25:48 GMT -5
factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/if you scroll down to the bottom of that article, there is a section entitled "Who Pays". that section cites the Congressional Budget Office's most recent data which states that the top 10% of income earners paid 55% of all federal taxes, including income, payroll, excise, and corporate income taxes. i agree any tax loopholes need to be fixed. however i dont think that saying tax the rich more is the answer to our problems. the issue seems much too comprehensive for that. We can't have it both ways. When the CBO says one thing, one group says they are terrible and we shouldn't rely on their numbers. But then when they say something the group likes, they praise the CBO. I wish we had recent numbers to look at as that chart is from 2007. the CBO is a nonpartisan organization though right? also, if you follow the basic trends of the chart, id see no reason why 3 years later it wouldnt be the same or close to 55% so my question still stands...if you believed that the top 10% paid 55% of taxes, would you raise their taxes for the benefit of the 90%?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 15:29:43 GMT -5
We can't have it both ways. When the CBO says one thing, one group says they are terrible and we shouldn't rely on their numbers. But then when they say something the group likes, they praise the CBO. I wish we had recent numbers to look at as that chart is from 2007. the CBO is a nonpartisan organization though right? also, if you follow the basic trends of the chart, id see no reason why 3 years later it wouldnt be the same or close to 55% so my question still stands...if you believed that the top 10% paid 55% of taxes, would you raise their taxes for the benefit of the 90%? Supposed to be but when they put out things people don't like, they scream that they are partisan but when they like it, they embrace it. Yes, I would still say raise their taxes.
|
|
Franky4Fingers
Superstar
Joined on: Aug 25, 2010 20:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 786
|
Post by Franky4Fingers on Jul 26, 2011 15:29:44 GMT -5
admittedly, i skimmed the topic so if i come across uninformed, you know why. couldn't we save billions by ending the wars. that's been billions as is right? that'd be a start. i wouldn't mind seeing a little more taxing of the top 1% either. shouldn't hurt them too much seeing as they own the largest bit of of wealth in the country.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 15:30:31 GMT -5
admittedly, i skimmed the topic so if i come across uninformed, you know why. couldn't we save billions by ending the wars. that's been billions as is right? that'd be a start. i wouldn't mind seeing a little more taxing of the top 1% either. shouldn't hurt them too much seeing as they own the largest bit of of wealth in the country. We will be spending trillions on the war but ending them now won't pay for what we've already spent.
|
|
Franky4Fingers
Superstar
Joined on: Aug 25, 2010 20:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 786
|
Post by Franky4Fingers on Jul 26, 2011 15:34:05 GMT -5
admittedly, i skimmed the topic so if i come across uninformed, you know why. couldn't we save billions by ending the wars. that's been billions as is right? that'd be a start. i wouldn't mind seeing a little more taxing of the top 1% either. shouldn't hurt them too much seeing as they own the largest bit of of wealth in the country. We will be spending trillions on the war but ending them now won't pay for what we've already spent. would it not save from spending more and thus free up a great deal of money?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 15:40:36 GMT -5
We will be spending trillions on the war but ending them now won't pay for what we've already spent. would it not save from spending more and thus free up a great deal of money? It would stop us from spending more but it won't free up anything.
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Jul 26, 2011 15:40:56 GMT -5
Supposed to be but when they put out things people don't like, they scream that they are partisan but when they like it, they embrace it. Yes, I would still say raise their taxes. then you lose the moral authority. no matter what you say, people should not be coerced into giving money to other people at such a rate that they end up footing more than half of the bill.
|
|
Franky4Fingers
Superstar
Joined on: Aug 25, 2010 20:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 786
|
Post by Franky4Fingers on Jul 26, 2011 15:42:55 GMT -5
would it not save from spending more and thus free up a great deal of money? It would stop us from spending more but it won't free up anything. ah ok. see? i'm clearly not a political guy. i figured if we stopped the daily spending and pulled funding from it we'd be a bit better off.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 15:43:11 GMT -5
So they shouldn't be covered. Then you can't complain and say they should have had health insurance when a medical emergency comes up. ... They should have had health insurance to begin with. What part of this are you not understanding? I'm confused. Basically what you're saying is that I should be able to NOT have insurance, have a bunch of random sex with chicks, contract AIDS, and then demand that a health insurance company pays for my treatment? I understand that there are other medical emergencies which are unavoidable that can come up, but this is essentially your basis of opinion, correct? That a health insurance, for-profit business should be required to pay for a person with a pre-existing condition? So in order for people to not be in ruin due to not having health insurance because of a pre-exisitng condition is to hope (some how before they are born) that their parents got them coverage when they were born. That's ing terrible and I hope you know that. It's reality man. Adults need to make adult decisions, even when it comes to their children. If they are unable to afford the things that their child NEEDS, then they should give that child up for adoption. It's the only humane thing to do. But unfortunately, we live in this world where people crackheaded mothers apparently think that they should raise kids in the ghetto without the essentials needed for success later in life. But what it comes down to is that people in America are treated for emergencies already. It's part of the law. Honestly, it's a debatable part of the law when it comes to Constitutionality, but it's part of the law that I would be okay with keeping. There really isn't a good way to take care of children who are uninsured. If we wanted to say that children (under 18) fall under the "physically or mentally unable to care for themselves" area and are thus automatically eligible for medical care; I'd be cool with that. I think they fall under both physically and mentally unable. ... But when they become the age to take care of themselves, they need to be planning to pay for insurance. No one says that and that's a lame thing that people against government say that those who are on government assistance say. You need to start quoting the things I'm saying and responding to them directly because I don't know what you're talking about right now. It doesn't have to do with taking responsibility and you are missing that. How does it NOT have to do with personal responsibility? In the VAST majority of cases, it does. When you have people who worked white collar jobs competing with high school drop outs for a gig at McDonalds, something is wrong. Actually, I think McDonalds requires a high school diploma now so those drop outs are ed as well. ... Then you better graduate high school or get your GED, huh? Again, the overlying theme is personal responsibility. It's not my fault that this person decided to skip school and/or not try whatsoever in school. I shouldn't have to pay for their negligence. There is a mentally handicapped guy who makes sandwiches at (one of) the Subways in my city. If he can find a job, I'm pretty sure a motivated, non-mentally handicapped person can do the same. That is a terrible argument. I did it so they can. that. How is that a terrible argument? I've lived the exact thing I'm saying is possible. It's not difficult. How is what I said NOT easy to do? That argument doesn't fit what I said. You said if we can't have SS then people now shouldn't have it. That'd be like, well you can't have your dinner because someone else can't have it later. It wouldn't be your $10 example. I specifically noted that the reason people now (and people in the future) shouldn't have it is because we can't afford it... Can't afford it now, can't afford it later. Again, this isn't opinion. This is fact. My example works perfectly. You're taking from the future to provide to the current generation. Actually, it's WORSE than the example I gave. It'd be more like if the meal cost $10 and you have $5... So in order to pay for it, you take out a $5 "I.O.U" in my name that I have to pay back with interest years down the road while you consume the $10 meal now. I don't even get to have a say in it. I just have to pay for it. me, right? You want your goddamn sandwich. They are going to spend it on their rent, their groceries, their medicine. Why do you assume everyone who gets Social Security isn't using it for those purproses? Why do you assume they are all out buying expensive luxury items or what have you? Why would I assume that people are going to spend their money on stupid things? Because they live in America, they're mentally handicapped, they don't comprehend how much things actually cost, and I'm realistic. I actually know people who DO spend their social security / welfare / unemployment money on "luxury" items, so I don't understand your question here. I'm talking about personal experiences, which don't seem to be good enough for you. How much of that $600 is supposed to be for you? A lot of people aren't getting $600 in their pay check and you expect them to save and afford all of this stuff that is necessary and if they can't, you think they are bums. That is a terrible mentatlity to have. First of all, you said it "only cost me a couple cents," which is ing absurd, and why I responded with an actual number and not some made up fantasy. If I wasn't being taxed $1200/mo, I'd probably appropriate a lot more of that money toward charities. In fact, I already do send quite a bit of money to various charities. But that's not the point. The point is that it's not "a few cents." It's a large sum of money that I worked for that is now being GIVEN to other people who are NOT working. Again, I have no problem taking care of people who actually need to be taken care of. But to live with this crazy theory that everyone on social security NEEDS it is ing absurd and you know it. And what do you mean by, "supposed to be for me?" All of it. I earned it by working. Even people who make MINIMUM WAGE can make over $1000/mo., most of which will be tax-free considering how little you're actually making. If you're making $1000/mo. and cannot figure out how to provide yourself with necessities, then you are not responsible. We can't help people at the current rate because people refuse to do anything that will make that help sustainable. They'd rather get rid of the help than figure out a way to save it. It's not sustainable in any way, man. Unless you're looking to create some sort of Communist government where all income is put toward the "greater good," then this is not sustainable. But there is a reason that a Communist government cannot be setup - because it completely negates all forms of human nature. The survival instincts turn off, the inventive instincts turn off. We all become zombies that just float along like lumps of crap. The problem is the system itself and that it encourages negligence. If it was revamped to take care of the people who only need it, we would be able to afford it easily.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 15:45:10 GMT -5
ah ok. see? i'm clearly not a political guy. i figured if we stopped the daily spending and pulled funding from it we'd be a bit better off. We would be. We'd at least be LESS ed.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 15:45:22 GMT -5
We will be spending trillions on the war but ending them now won't pay for what we've already spent. would it not save from spending more and thus free up a great deal of money? Also would not fix the fact that over half of our money is being spent on programs that are bleeding money.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 15:46:24 GMT -5
Supposed to be but when they put out things people don't like, they scream that they are partisan but when they like it, they embrace it. Yes, I would still say raise their taxes. then you lose the moral authority. no matter what you say, people should not be coerced into giving money to other people at such a rate that they end up footing more than half of the bill. They are going to be paying more anyways, amount wise at least. Under JFK, the rich paid 70%. Now, they pay half that, around 35%. I'm talking as individuals not as a collective when put against the entire revenue that is brought in.
|
|