"Tax Cuts For The Wealthiest 1%"

[acemona]

No one said anything about living high on the hog while on welfare. I do contend that in our attempt to be compassionate, and with certain politician's attempts to secure power by locking in votes among their "dependents", our government has usurped the position of fathers in many, many poor families. This has led to many social ills that must be cured.

 

I am sure if somebody did a quick search the you will find that the poor are not a significant voting block

 

USURPED no, stepped in yes.

[Fastbreak]

I am sure if somebody did a quick search the you will find that the poor are not a significant voting block

 

USURPED no, stepped in yes.

Believe it or not, I'm not out to argue with you no matter what... :lol:

 

You make spiritual arguments I agree with, but politically we seem to be coming at this from different directions.

 

It all depends upon how you define poverty. You refer to the "working poor." What annual income qualifies as working poor by your definitions?

[acemona]

Believe it or not, I'm not out to argue with you no matter what... :lol:

 

You make spiritual arguments I agree with, but politically we seem to be coming at this from different directions.

 

It all depends upon how you define poverty. You refer to the "working poor." What annual income qualifies as working poor by your definitions?

 

The working poor are those that are employed yet live below the poverty line and as a result do not have any expendable cash. In other words, all of their money (plus some help from the taxpayers) goes to cover essentials.

[Fastbreak]

The working poor are those that are employed yet live below the poverty line and as a result do not have any expendable cash. In other words, all of their money (plus some help from the taxpayers) goes to cover essentials.

I understand the working definition. I was inquiring about what you define as the income cut-off to qualify as "working poor."

[Fastbreak]

I had hoped that you might answer my question Ace, just to further our discussion. Absent your opinion, I turn instead to The Department of Health and Human Services who lists the poverty line in 2005 as:

 

A family of 4 earning $19,350 or less.

A family of 5 earning $22,610 or less.

 

SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 33, February 18, 2005, pp. 8373-8375.

 

At these levels, the “working poor” and the “unemployed poor” make up well over one-third of our entire population. These are individuals who contribute little if any taxable revenue to the national coffers, and utilize the vast majority of social services provided by federal and state government. By default, these people pass the burden of tax payments onto the shoulders of those earning more.

 

The clear objective here should be, "How can we elevate more poor into higher incomes?" not, "How can we take more from the higher incomes to sustain increasing numbers of the poor?"

 

When it comes to discussing “tax cuts” it should make sense that any tangible cuts go to the individuals actually “paying taxes” not to those already “zeroed out” and receiving benefits. How can you reduce the tax burden for someone that doesn’t pay taxes already?

 

In our current "two party" system, the party wishing to cut taxes on the individual, while providing equal or better "services" must by default raise the bar on income levels, in effect generating more middle and upper (taxable) incomes, and fewer low (tax exempt) incomes.

 

Conversely, the party seeking to raise taxes and punish the rich must by default seek to sustain a broad base of low and middle incomes to retain power... in effect reducing the number of "high end" (wealthy) taxpayers, and increasing "exempt" dependents.

 

It has less to to with me suggesting that everyone pull themselves up by their bootstraps, than it does with the Charles Rangels of our nation wanting to "pull down" the achievers.

 

To grossly simplify, which message do you think bears more hope?

 

"We want to help you achieve more for yourself and your family."

 

or

 

"We're gonna get more of what those (fill in the blank) have for you and your family."

[Fastbreak]

Let’s examine the words of politicians who want to raise taxes, but promise that their intention is not to punish the “middle class.”

 

It would first be beneficial to define, “Who is the middle class?”

 

To simplify, I am going to generalize according to actual IRS statistics:

 

The 44.09% earning $24,999 or less annually will be considered “POOR”

The 46.26% earning between $25,000 and $99,999 annually will be considered “MIDDLE CLASS”

And the 9.55% earning $100,000 or more will be considered the “RICH”

 

Keep in mind that 50% of all those filing Income Tax Forms earn less than $29,100, and 50% earn more than $29,100.

 

As it stands, we already have the top 50% of wage earners (those earning above $29,100 annually) paying nearly 98% of the income taxes. Do you actually believe it is sensible to expect the top 10% of all taxpayers, (those earning above $96,500) and currently paying nearly 68% of the total income tax burden in this country to pay even more?

 

This is punitive to the extreme. The most clearly defined message this sends is that achievement will be punished in America.

 

A far, far greater good would be achieved by elevating more of the bottom 50% of all wage earners into higher income brackets. We cannot possibly do this by punishing achievement. Why aspire to greater income through risk, education and hard work if your reward is to have even more of the fruits of your labor reassigned to those unable or unwilling to make the same sacrifices?

 

This is socialistic insanity.

 

You cannot name one nation in the history of the world in which this type of governance was or is successful.

[Fastbreak]

At this point, I go back to my original premise that this all boils down to a numbers game for a vast majority of Democrat politicians.

 

If they are aware that 50% of all taxpayers pay less than 3% of all income taxes collected, thereby representing 50% of all potential voters, it only stands to reason that they recognize this group as a key to personal power.

 

Everyone loves the story of “Robin Hood” robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. Unlike “Robin Hood” however, I contend that it is these dishonest politicians intentionally pandering disinformation, fueling bitterness, jealousy and envy that are at the heart of the partisan acrimony that cripples our political process today.

 

Anyone willing to say or do anything to get votes does not deserve to hold office IMO.

 

It is morally reprehensible.

[Fastbreak]

Oh, by the way...

 

"HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[AHSPanther23]

I had hoped that you might answer my question Ace, just to further our discussion. Absent your opinion, I turn instead to The Department of Health and Human Services who lists the poverty line in 2005 as:

 

A family of 4 earning $19,350 or less.

A family of 5 earning $22,610 or less.

 

 

Is there anyplace to find out how the Poverty Trend has been over the past 50 years or so? Because probably in the 1950's it was no doubt around $10,000 or so.

If there was a way to go to the past with the money you have now you would be considered rich. If I went to 1940 U.S. with $1,000 I would be considered fairly well, if not rich off.

acemona

I want the government to get rid of poverty and to end the cycle of poverty that destroys families.

 

I can honestly understand where you are coming from, I my self so far have grown up with just enough that keeps us just above the "POOR" Class line. But during the past 90 years many people have seen what those types of governements can do to an economy. The form of government is COMMUNISUM-is a social system that abolishes private property, social classes, and the state itself. But such a "communist state" would be an oxymoron. No country or government ever called itself a "Communist State"; however, various states gave the Communist Party a special status in their constitution and laws, while claiming to be heading in the direction of communism. A more accurate description for those countries would be “socialist states” because Karl Marx saw socialism and socialist state as transitional period toward communism.

Look at Soviet Russia. They had a Communist government, which is an ideology that wants to establish a classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production.

Where this can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. This is a political goal generally is a conjectured form of future social organization. Central economic planning has in certain instances produced dramatic advances, and many countries under Communist rule with planned economies maintained consistently higher rates of economic growth than some industrialized countries in the capitalist Wests. For example, the economy of the Soviet Union grew by a factor of 10 from 1928 to 1985, and GNP per capita grew more than fivefold. However, the Soviet Union later experienced a severe economic downturn in the 1970s and 80s, which contributed to its collapse.

 

But see these positives have draw backs. If there is a bad famine that year, typically it would be those who raise it, but in a Communist State, everyone

in that area suffers. Not only that but you would be forever watched by the government

 

NOT ONLY THAT BUT LOOK AT WHAT BASIC RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED:

 

Communist regimes often practice censorship of dissent. The level of censorship varies widely between different states and historical periods, but it nearly always exists to a greater or lesser degree. Most Communist regimes employ an extensive network of civilian informants - sometimes composed of volunteers, sometimes forcibly recruited - to collect intelligence for the government and report cases of dissent. Ruling Communist parties themselves, as well as their advocates, often argue that censorship and similar restrictions are unfortunate but necessary, as defensive measures against capitalist subversion funded by foreign powers.

Critics argue that censorship violates fundamental human rights and that the Communist regimes' fear of subversion has no grounds in reality.

 

Restrictions on emigration from states under Communist rule received extensive publicity. The Berlin wall was one of the most famous examples of this, but North Korea still imposes a total ban on emigration (reported on PBS's program Frontline) and Cuba's restrictions are routinely criticized by the Cuban-American community. However, of all Communist states, only Albania and North Korea ever imposed a blanket ban on emigration. Legal emigration was always possible from other Communist states, though often difficult. Some of these states relaxed emigration laws significantly from the 1960s onwards. Advocates of Communist states argue that restrictions on emigration from those states were no more intense than such restrictions that had been imposed by capitalist (or otherwise non-Communist) countries in the past. For example, most European capitalist countries heavily restricted emigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Critics of Communist regimes argue that regardless of what happened in the past, Communist states still placed higher barriers on emigration than capitalist countries in the same time period.

 

The most severe accusations made against Communist regimes is that they were allegedly responsible for millions of deaths. The vast majority of these deaths are held to have occurred under the regimes of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union and Mao Zedong in China. As such, most critics focus on those two regimes in particular, though others have claimed that all Communist regimes were responsible for some numbers of unjust deaths.

Most Communist regimes held the death penalty as a legal form of punishment for most of their existence, with a few exceptions (e.g. the Soviet Union abolished it from 1947 to 1950). Critics argue that many, perhaps most, of the convicted prisoners executed by Communist regimes were not criminals, but political dissidents. Stalin's Great Purge in the late 1930s (roughly 1936-38) is given as the most prominent example of this.

 

A number of Communist states also held forced labour as a legal form of punishment for certain periods of time, and, again, critics argue that the majority of those sentenced to forced labour camps - such as the Gulag - were sent there for political rather than criminal reasons. Some of the Gulag camps were located in very harsh environments, such as Siberia, which resulted in the death of a significant fraction of their inmates before they could complete their prison terms. The Gulag was shut down in 1960.

 

Communist states often engaged in rapid industrialization, and in some cases this has lead to environmental disasters. The most cited example is the great shrinking of the Aral Sea in today's Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, which is believed to have been caused by the diversion of the waters of its two affluent rivers for cotton production. In 1988 only 20% of the sewage in the Soviet Union was treated properly. Established health standards for air pollution were exceeded by ten times or more in 103 cities in 1988. In Eastern Europe, air pollution is cited as the cause of forest die-back, damage to buildings and cultural heritage, and a rise in the occurrence of lung cancer. All of the aforementioned examples of environmental degradation are similar to what occurred in Western capitalist countries during the height of their drive to industrialize, in the 19th century.

 

Advocates of Communist states claim that, on the whole, the environmental record of these states was the same or better than the record of Western capitalism during its industrialization period. Critics claim that Communist states caused much more environmental damage than capitalism.

 

This is where everything is equal, noone is above the other. They all wipe their rears with the same kind of toilet paper

 

You must also see that the 44.09% earning $0-$24,999 yearly are considered "POOR". No offense to poorer people, but there are some people who prefer to be poor because that means the goverenment pays for food, clothing, medicare, housing, EVERYTHING. These people think it is a smart idea to cheat some other people out in order to get an easy ride on government issued checks, which they may use to go to bars, cigarettes, anything. These people are sometimes called "Leches" because they would not do an honest day's work for anything and act as if they are injured in order to get that good check, thus it could easily deprieve a poor family that desperately need the check.

Ace you would honestly make a great spokesperson for the lower class, though you are attempting to have our government do something that Jesus Himself said would not occur in this age.

Mt 26:11 – “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.”

 

Mr 14:7 – “The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.”

 

Joh 12:8 – “You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

 

So JESUS has spoken, what is in the Bible could no doubt be true. It will probably never happen, that is unless the United States' Government becomes a Communist State or a "Capitalist Nation" with Communist ideas.

 

There is also the beatitudes:

The poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mourners for they will be comforted.

The hungry for they will be filled.

Those persecuted for seeking righteousness for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The meek for they will inherit the earth.

The merciful for they will obtain mercy.

The pure of heart for they will see God.

The peacemakers for they will be called the children of God.

 

Each and everyone of these is what many people, both poor and rich, have read through and lived by it. There is a section in which a rich person gives some money to the church and there comes a poor women who puts 6 copper pieces, all that she had, in the basket. Jesus told the man that the women will enter Heaven because she gave everything up to follow him.

 

There will always be poor, middle, and rich people. There is no way to get around it, and many have tried and failed. God does not judge us on what Wealth, Power, Authority we have, he bases us on for how we follow him and the ways we have tried to live a meek and humble life.

 

The Puritans believed in that God was a Powerful man who everyone had to fear, he was supposedly not a kind, forgiving God that many believe in it today. Many believed that God punished you for wrong doings and punished you by: making you poor, causeing a disaster to take everything you have, a death. If you believe in that then go right ahead but, IMO God is a kind, merciful person, who would forgive you for what you had done, if you were truly sorry. I believe God knows that the Devil can tempt us very easily on earth, that is why things like lying, stealing, and every sin that people do multiple times can be forgiven. God believes that you are truly sorry for the sins you commited by looking into you heart, he hears our pleas and cries for help and, like a parent, he forgives us for the wrongs we have done. I think he knows that the devil has corrupted many people on this world and that it is really hard to remain loyal to him. I mean comeon, we all have dirty little secrets.

 

In the eyes of God, we are all the same, someday we'll all have perfect wings. Money, Wealth, Authority, Power is what will cause the world to end as we know it.

[The Professor]

Panther23, how long did it take you to compose that post?:lol:

 

I agree with your point that some people choose to draw a government check as a means of survival. I know quite a few people who could work, or get a job in other counties (although they might have to get up early and do a little driving) where they would make much more money than they could possibly draw in government hand outs, but they don't make the effort. I suppose they feel they already have what they need: the best health insurance one could ask for (medical card), fuel money, low interest housing, food cards, SSI, etc. And the sad thing is that their children are raised in that system of thinking and follow the same path.

[AHSPanther23]

Panther23, how long did it take you to compose that post?:lol:

 

I agree with your point that some people choose to draw a government check as a means of survival. I know quite a few people who could work, or get a job in other counties (although they might have to get up early and do a little driving) where they would make much more money than they could possibly draw in government hand outs, but they don't make the effort. I suppose they feel they already have what they need: the best health insurance one could ask for (medical card), fuel money, low interest housing, food cards, SSI, etc. And the sad thing is that their children are raised in that system of thinking and follow the same path.

 

I think about 35-55 minutes, it was my last post of the night. :sleep: I had to make sure that it was accurate and everything else.

That is the thing that I have to say I do not like is when you are perfectly capable of working, but you do not, and there is a family who needs it but they get less $$ because of all the "Leches", who wait around in their houses and rarely go out except once a month to get their "SmokesNBooze" Check.

Does anyone think the Feds will try to reform this so that the people that need it get it, and those who do not, get off their lazy fat butts and do something?

It is true, their kids may end up becoming like them, lazy, overweight, and on Food Stamps.

Sometimes it may be a good idea to have a Communist Government, they all have no Rich/Poor Lines. But whut am I saying? This is a great nation and if you work and create a nice pile of wealth under you, you basically have the American Dream. But if you are like some of the "Leches" you have a chance of getting thrown in jail, and may end up paying back more than they bargained for.

As Homer Simpson put it....USAUSAUSA...Doh!?!