It is odd.

 

Maybe because several folks think tightening up social welfare will bring us together?

 

 

 

You need to consider the rest of the title.

 

"Examining the role of Government and coming to some agreement."

 

I'd say we are examining the role of Government, using social welfare as a proxy for all of government.

Well UKMF, as the official BGP Financial Controller, if we make decisions based upon cost benefit analysis, why do we continue to invest in social programs when poverty rates are unchanged for the last 25 years?

 

Could it be that those programs have kept it from being worse?

 

It was pointed out well in an earlier post that the percentages were higher prior to the Great Society Programs.

 

So is it possible that the current safety nets have kept many from plunging deeper into the poverty level?

Could it be that those programs have kept it from being worse?

 

It was pointed out well in an earlier post that the percentages were higher prior to the Great Society Programs.

 

So is it possible that the current safety nets have kept many from plunging deeper into the poverty level?

 

Poverty rates measured before implementation of The New Deal would have occurred during the Great Depression. We have a lot more jobs around per ca pita today then then. I don't think a comparison of the eras is relevant.

Poverty rates measured before implementation of The New Deal would have occurred during the Great Depression. We have a lot more jobs around per ca pita today then then. I don't think a comparison of the eras is relevant.

 

Great Society is the 60's program of Lyndon Johnson that gave us the current welfare and social services net.

 

I was thinking of the 50's and 60's prior to these programs being implemented.

 

:thumb:

I don't think it is a matter of ignoring fraud, it is a matter of being too incompetent to identify fraud.

 

When government budgets are cut, these positions are often unfilled as the priority is to preserve the positions taking claims and processing benefits. Auditing these programs, as we all know, is not free and adds to the cost of programs although the reality is that there is usually a much greater than 1:1 payback.

To answer the question of the topic "Healing the Political Divide in America begins with .....", I offer to eliminate all talk referencing we/they, us/them, our side of the aisle/their side of the aisle, democrat/republican, blue/red etc.

 

To emphasize this effort, please eliminate seating in Congress (House and Senate) by political party.........draw straws, alphabetically, date State joined the Union or anything else that does not emphasize party affiliation.

 

Once that is done eliminate the Seniority system especially for congressional committee assignments. Put the most capable/qualified person(s) in leadership positions, not just by virtue of having been around the longest..........what a crazy way to decide anyway!!

To answer the question of the topic "Healing the Political Divide in America begins with .....", I offer to eliminate all talk referencing we/they, us/them, our side of the aisle/their side of the aisle, democrat/republican, blue/red etc.

 

To emphasize this effort, please eliminate seating in Congress (House and Senate) by political party.........draw straws, alphabetically, date State joined the Union or anything else that does not emphasize party affiliation.

 

Once that is done eliminate the Seniority system especially for congressional committee assignments. Put the most capable/qualified person(s) in leadership positions, not just by virtue of having been around the longest..........what a crazy way to decide anyway!!

 

Amen!!!! :thumb:

To answer the question of the topic "Healing the Political Divide in America begins with .....", I offer to eliminate all talk referencing we/they, us/them, our side of the aisle/their side of the aisle, democrat/republican, blue/red etc.

 

To emphasize this effort, please eliminate seating in Congress (House and Senate) by political party.........draw straws, alphabetically, date State joined the Union or anything else that does not emphasize party affiliation.

 

Once that is done eliminate the Seniority system especially for congressional committee assignments. Put the most capable/qualified person(s) in leadership positions, not just by virtue of having been around the longest..........what a crazy way to decide anyway!!

 

Some valid points here.:thumb:

Is it always fraud or is it sometimes knowing how to beat the system? I am amazed when the impoverished beat the system, and believe me some know how and do, and find a loophole, they are a freeloader. When a rich person beats the tax system with loopholes, which they also know how and do, they are a genius or smart. That is the impetus of the divide, along with different values.

 

I have not read all posts, this may have been said already. Beating the system is fraud, using the legal nuances, well is legal. Just as tax loopholes are legal methods by which a taxpayer can reduce their taxable income. Then maybe how we define beating the system is different.

I have not read all posts, this may have been said already. Beating the system is fraud, using the legal nuances, well is legal. Just as tax loopholes are legal methods by which a taxpayer can reduce their taxable income. Then maybe how we define beating the system is different.

 

It's the same. There are legal ways to get money in poverty that need to be tightened, and legal loopholes in tax that need to be tightened.

 

 

The difference some struggle with is some are taking more than they should in poverty and there are some that don't give their fair share. It is the same difference to me. They both are either smart or both are freeloaders.

 

I call that beating the system. Both need changes. I am afraid the poor will get tightened and the rich will get more loopholes or pay less. It isn't fair to do to one differently than you do another.

It's the same. There are legal ways to get money in poverty that need to be tightened, and legal loopholes in tax that need to be tightened.

 

 

The difference some struggle with is some are taking more than they should in poverty and there are some that don't give their fair share. It is the same difference to me. They both are either smart or both are freeloaders.

 

I call that beating the system. Both need changes. I am afraid the poor will get tightened and the rich will get more loopholes or pay less. It isn't fair to do to one differently than you do another.

 

Define fair share. 50%, 80%. Who gets to determine the number?

Define fair share. 50%, 80%. Who gets to determine the number?

 

 

At least the percentage of my income that I pay. I don't use loopholes, hide money in foreign entities or anything like that. I make my salary pay what the tax code says, most of them don't.

It's the same. There are legal ways to get money in poverty that need to be tightened, and legal loopholes in tax that need to be tightened.

 

 

The difference some struggle with is some are taking more than they should in poverty and there are some that don't give their fair share. It is the same difference to me. They both are either smart or both are freeloaders.

 

I call that beating the system. Both need changes. I am afraid the poor will get tightened and the rich will get more loopholes or pay less. It isn't fair to do to one differently than you do another.

 

I see what you are saying, but disagree. Using the law to your advantage, nothing wrong with that. Get the law changed if you disagree. Scamming is another matter. Trump's tax plan, as discussed in another thread, eliminates, as you call them, loopholes, more properly called tax deductions. You should get behind that plan, as it does what you want, gets rid of legal tax deductions (loopholes).

Define fair share. 50%, 80%. Who gets to determine the number?

 

 

I too am tired of the so-called fair share. It seems as if the term is used, but never defined. If those who support fair share would take a look at who pays the majority of taxes, it is the top 10% of money earners and the lower 40% or so pay nothing to the feds. It seems that the top earners already pay their fair share and more.

At least the percentage of my income that I pay. I don't use loopholes, hide money in foreign entities or anything like that. I make my salary pay what the tax code says, most of them don't.

 

So if hypothetically speaking all loopholes get closed and the number of tax brackets is dropped you'd be OK if someone making 1M+ payed the same percentage as someone making 100K?