You attribute cause and effect that is simply not there. If I am poor and working 2 low paying jobs, when is it that you would expect me to be involved in my child's education, plus, if my child has to work to help pay the bills - when will my child be involved in his education.

 

Do you realize that you get fired from the local Speedy Mart when you have to call in sick a couple of times b/c your child has to stay home from school - and then you are without a job. Imagine trying to have a school visit by taking off work, ain't gonna happen.

 

Your attempt to put middle class values on lower class groups simply can't/doesn't happen. What the poor have to put their value on is making enough money today to pay the rent and buy some food. They can't spend a lot of time thinking about tomorrow.

 

I know it seems so easy to just say - they need to make different decisions, but when you are right there in the middle of it the decisions don't come so easy. It is hard to understand if you have never experienced it, and even harder to explain when you have.

 

BTW, as I anticipated you could not name one person who loves to be on welfare and has a desire to remain there. I would bet that 95% of the people who claim that are a lot of people like that cannot name one - they just assume that it is true.

 

Work two jobs? I think myself and Letherneck are talking about people who work no jobs. These people do not work and are not part of their child's education.

Work two jobs? I think myself and Letherneck are talking about people who work no jobs. These people do not work and are not part of their child's education.

And you think people with zero employment are a majority of those on welfare? And that they make a lifetime out of it?

And you think people with zero employment are a majority of those on welfare? And that they make a lifetime out of it?

 

Anyone I have ever known on welfare was not working and the few and far between that did, only did so if they got paid under the table.

And you think people with zero employment are a majority of those on welfare? And that they make a lifetime out of it?

 

I'm saying that the majority (90% or greater) of the people on welfare that I come in contact with have zero employment and make a lifetime out of it. If the welfare stops then they get a psychological disability, and that goes on for life.

Anyone I have ever known on welfare was not working and the few and far between that did, only did so if they got paid under the table.

 

This is my experience also. If they want a little extra money and do not want to affect their welfare, they do some odd jobs for money under the table. I have known people who make 20 or 30 thousand dollars a year under the table and still receive welfare, and other government assistance.

That is just the typical MANTRA hauled out by people to make an argument. You may have heard a story once about somebody that was on welfare and LOVED it b/c they didn't have to work, but I will bet money that you can't name me one person you know who is on welfare and LOVES it.

 

I have known plenty, working in education, and not one of them desired to be on welfare. In fact, most were even embarrassed to use the food-stamps they got b/c they didn't like people thinking they were poor.

 

Scripture: To whome much has been given, much will be required.

Spiderman: With great power comes great responsibility.

 

Choose your philosophy.

No, it's fact.

I have a very good friend that was a social worker and now is a teacher at UC. She could show you people all day long that live off of the system by choice and absolutely love it. Heck, I can show you around parts of NKY and Cincinnati where people willingly live off of the system and have no intention of ever doing any differently. They love it! They were brought up to do it, its how they were taught. Travel around and look for yourself, you won’t have to look hard, it’s very easy to find.

BTW, can we leave Spiderman out of the debate? :creepy:

Sorry, I don't buy that argument ONE BIT.

 

Living in America (another fortunate accident of birth) you're set in the greatest system in the world to earn your fortune. Nowhere else in the world, perhaps even in the HISTORY of the world, could you have been given a better opportunity to live in peace and prosperity on your own two feet. Our country gave you that opportunity, and you have an obligation to give back to the system that you benefitted so much from.

 

I agree. I just disagree about the 73%. I also have a problem with how the 73% often finds it's way into the pockets of people who had the same opportunities yet did not want to do the work required to make the fortune you did. Also, please note that many people in the above scenario have already given back huge amounts in income tax during their lifetime. How much is enough in your opinion?

It is always interesting in these threads to see everyone's opinion of "fair". The fact is, every time the federal government spends a dollar someone has to pay for it. It is just a question of deciding who that someone will be. Will it be all citizens equally (head tax). How about the same percentage from all income (flat tax)? Will we treat all income the same? Preferential treatment for capital gains and dividends? Estate taxes? Will we provide favorable tax treatment of high wages (social security)? Will we try to move the tax system toward taxing wages and away from taxing investment income (the Bush plan)? How about we just send the bill to our children and grandchildren (the current system)? Two things should govern. The first is a fair distribution of the burden. That is open to interpretation. For most people, what they think is fair is for someone else to pay more while they pay less. The second is to promote the overall welfare of the country.

 

On a separate note, I'm not an accountant, but how was the 73 percent tax rate determined? Let's assume 2006 for the $10,000,000 earning. I make the federal income tax to be $3,477,000, assuming no deductions, credits or anything else. That would leave $6,523,000. I think that the current federal estate tax exclusion is $2,000,000. That leaves $4,523,000. The estate tax rate is 45 percent or $2,035,350. Total federal tax is $5,512,350 or 55.1 percent. Still hefty enough, but not 73 percent.

Anyone have any opinions on the Fair Tax?

Let me reference a REALLY good resource...Understanding Poverty by Ruby Payne. If you really want to explore the hows and whys of poverty and educate yourself on the topic, this is an awesome book. It really opened up my eyes.

In any case, HHSDad is deliberately choosing a scenario that's a kick in the teeth.

How about scenarios I have seen? Joe starts his own company, pours his blood, sweat and tears into it, lives modestly because he is just taking enough money out of the company to feed and clothe his family and pay his taxes. Joe and wife get killed in a car wreck. Joe's company must be sold off to pay the estate taxes.

 

Walter, an elderly farmer, works the land his family has owned for 100 years. Walter's wife passed several years before. While harvesting his crops, Walter drops dead of a heart attack. His kids must take out huge mortgages to pay the estate taxes on the value of the farm upon their father's death. They eventually lose the farm because the profit margin just isn't their to support both the family and the debt.

On a separate note, I'm not an accountant, but how was the 73 percent tax rate determined? Let's assume 2006 for the $10,000,000 earning. I make the federal income tax to be $3,477,000, assuming no deductions, credits or anything else. That would leave $6,523,000. I think that the current federal estate tax exclusion is $2,000,000. That leaves $4,523,000. The estate tax rate is 45 percent or $2,035,350. Total federal tax is $5,512,350 or 55.1 percent. Still hefty enough, but not 73 percent.

 

HHSDad used a date of death in 2011 for a reason. That is the year that the sunset provisions of that particular tax are invoked and the estate tax rate returns to 55% with an exemption of $1 million not $2. After the deceased pays his income tax (federal and state), and his estate pays the inheritance tax, then the 73% used in his example is a very reliable estimate.

I've been a CPA for almost 20 years and definitely agree with HHSDad's and Leatherneck's "real world" view of fairness in taxation. Some other posts also contain keen insight imo (and not just the posts I agree with btw:D ).

 

However, for other posts, I'm reminded of Simon's response to one of Sanjaya's performances on American Idol............ Incredible.

I've seen that a million times and havn't bothered to "snopes" it yet, but I doubt that professor is either real or wrote that.

 

Regardless, it reminds me of a quote from Deng Xiaoping "I have two choices: to distribute poverty or to distribute wealth."

 

Why distribute anything? Work hard and keep what you earn. That is all that most people want. What would I want to bust my hump to pay for someone who has done nothing to earn it?

Class envy by whom? Surely you don't think the poor are making the laws that establish the tax brackets do you? I would say that anyone passing these laws are taxing themselves. I would venture to say that Nancy Pelosi and Henry Reed are not envious of anyone else's wealth.

 

It might just be the Christian thing to do.

 

Didn't Jesus tell the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and give his money to the poor.

 

If I am making (as a family) 200,000.00 dollars per year and I take home 140,000 and I live in a 400,000.00 home, why would I scream for a tax break?

 

It would appear to me that my life is pretty good.

 

If I really want to reduce my tax burden I can give more money to charity and it will go way down.

 

Giving money away, and being taxed are two totally different items.