On the 47% who don't pay taxes

[franklin]

Or mentally disturbed. Or suffered a debilitatiing illness early in their life. Or being severly disfigured. Or stayed home ot raise the their children, and then found themselves widoweded/divorced without adequate resources. Or found themselves on the wrong street corner on the wrong day with the wrong skin color, and are now limited by a criminal history. Or living in the remote Applachian mountains or various small towns. Other than that, and probagbly a dozen other things if I really thought hard about it. It[s probagbly better just to say "lazy", then you won't have to cogitate on the remarkable amount of luck that goes into being a self-made man.

I find it completely disrespectful to lump a lot of these people into a group that includes the unmotivated, lazy, criminal, and chronically bad decision makers. We owe them more respect than lumping them into the rich-poor discussion as fodder to serve our agendas. We're all better off discussing each collection of situations individually and personally so we can craft legislation that actually impacts them in a meaningful way.

FWIW, I haven't heard of anyone discussing SS overhaul talking about taking living dependents or the disabled off the roles.

Yet, you would agree, not the current middle class as a whole is going bankrupt, but that the numbers in the middle class is shrinking as a percentage of the population, right? If so, even if the post is poorly phrased, you agree with what one I suspect the poster meant.

Not at all. On an individual level, I'd like to know what this persons excuse is, even though it's not a duplicate personality.

On the macro level, I'm not going to pretend to know what the correct percent of the population being middle class is. It's a figure that cannot grow forever, and will wax and wane over time. Being a down year or decade isn't as troublesome to me as a chronic problem spiraling out of control. We are faced with a post-Lewis Turning Point era so the shrinking middle class seems inevitable. Let's see how we manage it to protect democracy.

I challenge anyone to come up with any meaningful measurement of declining standard of living that runs outside the last exceptional 2008-2010 years. I would be surprised if you found much inside those anyway. It's the complaints about standard of living by the left that bugs the hell out of me. How can we not appreciate the highest standard of living the world has ever seen?

If we talk in terms of a growing wealth divide affecting democracy then I'm all ears. I'm not so sure the problem isn't completely overblown, and I'm convinced the problem is highly driven by our own greed through government transfer payments. But when it comes to "taxing" the rich, I don't call it taxing at all. Taking back what they got appropriated for themselves through lobbyists and political connections is a wash for them, at worst.

 

[babe]

I find it completely disrespectful to lump a lot of these people into a group that includes the unmotivated, lazy, criminal, and chronically bad decision makers. We them more respect than lumping them into the rich-poor discussion as fodder to serve our agendas. We're all better off discussing each collection of situations individually and personally so we can craft legislation that actually impacts them in a meaningful way.

FWIW, I haven't heard of anyone discussing SS overhaul talking about taking living dependents or the disabled off the roles.




Not at all. On an individual level, I'd like to know what this persons excuse is, even though it's not a duplicate personality.

On the macro level, I'm not going to pretend to know what the correct percent of the population being middle class is. It's a figure that cannot grow forever, and will wax and wane over time. Being a down year or decade isn't as troublesome to me as a chronic problem spiraling out of control. We are faced with a post-Lewis Turning Point era so the shrinking middle class seems inevitable. Let's see how we manage it to protect democracy.

I challenge anyone to come up with any meaningful measurement of declining standard of living that runs outside the last exceptional 2008-2010 years. I would be surprised if you found much inside those anyway. It's the complaints about standard of living by the left that bugs the hell out of me. How can we not appreciate the highest standard of living the world has ever seen?

If we talk in terms of a growing wealth divide affecting democracy then I'm all ears. I'm not so sure the problem isn't completely overblown, and I'm convinced the problem is highly driven by our own greed through government transfer payments. But when it comes to "taxing" the rich, I don't call it taxing at all. Taking back what they got appropriated for themselves through lobbyists and political connections is a wash for them, at best.

"taking back" ill-gotten gains could be as simple as having a grand jury selected in a three-tier program. Supervisors selected from the general population, criminal law attorneys drawn from retired attorneys, and actual jurors drawn from licensed CPAs. Anybody perceiving some kind of payola/kickback/quid pro quo relation between lobbyists and legislators or judges or executive branch official, or any government agency officials and people with something to gain from their decisions could file a complaint. The CPAs would be given the task of getting the relevant records. Any simple cash transfer to the control of anyone in "public service" from any private interest would be illegal on the face of it all. And reciprocal benefit would require BOTH of the parties to repay the taxpayers ten times the amount paid, and render the benefit secured illegal. The vote cast/decision made would be invalidated. Two offenses would unseat a legislator and make him ineligible for life for public service. Bureaucratic officials, like those scum at the FDA would be fired and ineligible, for life, for re-hire or any other public job.

The "Supervisors" would be drawn randomly from the voter rolls, and serve for one year, paid three times their civilian income or twice the twice the median US income, whichever is more, and ineligible for second terms. They would review the work of the more profession types drawn from the retired licensed professionals, who also would serve short stints, say two years, at twice their retirement incomes. It's an honor to be drawn, and worth having no reason to be approachable by "suspects". If any of these is found by the "supervisors" to be double dealing on the public trust, they can be replaced. And lose their total pay.

I'm sure there are some details to work out here, but this is a general "No way are we going to stand for this corrupt government" statement.

 

[One Brow]

I find it completely disrespectful to lump a lot of these people into a group that includes the unmotivated, lazy, criminal, and chronically bad decision makers.

So do I, yet they are still in the bottom 20%, and I was not the one that used a single adjective as a characteristic of the botttom 20%.

We're all better off discussing each collection of situations individually and personally so we can craft legislation that actually impacts them in a meaningful way.

I agree completely.

FWIW, I haven't heard of anyone discussing SS overhaul talking about taking living dependents or the disabled off the roles.

The disabled are not on the Social Security roles. Their funds are managed by the Social Security Administration, but come from a separate source, and the program is (IIRC) Supplemental Security Income. If you gut welfare overall, that will include SSI unless you specifically exampt it, and I'm not aware of any proposals that have.

If you reduce social Security payouts by, say 75%, that will reduce the payouts to living dependents unless you specifically craft legislation to make an exception. I have not heard of such legislation being proposed.

On the macro level, I'm not going to pretend to know what the correct percent of the population being middle class is. It's a figure that cannot grow forever, and will wax and wane over time. Being a down year or decade isn't as troublesome to me as a chronic problem spiraling out of control. We are faced with a post-Lewis Turning Point era so the shrinking middle class seems inevitable. Let's see how we manage it to protect democracy.

I agree it is a number that can not grow forever. The question then becomes, does the United have a number roughly in line with countries that have relatively stable societies, or with those that have less stable societies, and to what degree this number plays into that stability.

I challenge anyone to come up with any meaningful measurement of declining standard of living that runs outside the last exceptional 2008-2010 years. I would be surprised if you found much inside those anyway. It's the complaints about standard of living by the left that bugs the hell out of me. How can we not appreciate the highest standard of living the world has ever seen?

If we talk in terms of a growing wealth divide affecting democracy then I'm all ears. I'm not so sure the problem isn't completely overblown, and I'm convinced the problem is highly driven by our own greed through government transfer payments. But when it comes to "taxing" the rich, I don't call it taxing at all. Taking back what they got appropriated for themselves through lobbyists and political connections is a wash for them, at worst.

I agree these answers are never as simple as the soundbytes try to make them.

By the way, I really like your signature. You might add that he's also not endorsed by any of the Congress members who worked with him in the 1990s (which as far as I know is true).

 

[green]

All of these attitudes are the wrong attitudes to have. They are why the country is split and idiots like Gingrich and Obama are running the country. This countries problems are OUR problems. Not left, not right. Everybody's. In that light, EVERYONE should be giving and working towards making this better. EVERYONE. Now, not everyone can give the same, and that is fine. But EVERYONE should be investing something into making this better. The more people that are invested in the country, the more people will care, and the more people will elect worthy leaders.

Instead of uneducated people voting for someone because they found god, or are a certain race or gender, people will actually look at what each person stands for. Until everyone is invested, you will have 47% of the people that don't care enough to truly find out what they stand for, and these silly politics will continue.

 

[TroutBum]

Once people realize that the President of the United States isn't really responsible for ANYTHING, and that we could elect a corpse and nobody would know, the sooner we'll be able to fix our problems. Change will NEVER come from an elected president, but must come from the lowest level on up.

 

[One Brow]

Well, I would disagree that President has no effect, but I agree that Presidents have less effect tham most people attribute to them.

 

[green]

Once people realize that the President of the United States isn't really responsible for ANYTHING, and that we could elect a corpse and nobody would know, the sooner we'll be able to fix our problems. Change will NEVER come from an elected president, but must come from the lowest level on up.

The biggest thing you should want from your president: Supreme Court Justices. That is why Obama has to lose, or this country is in trouble. There are potentially three Supreme Court Justices that will retire in the next four years. Could you imagine three more young, stupid, no-experienced, bad judgement Judges? That is the scary thing.

 

[One Brow]

Could you imagine three more young, stupid, no-experienced, bad judgement Judges? That is the scary thing.

That description sums up recent Republican and recent Democratic judges. It's not a reason to prefer one party over the other.

 

[Stoked]

Once people realize that the President of the United States isn't really responsible for ANYTHING, and that we could elect a corpse and nobody would know, the sooner we'll be able to fix our problems. Change will NEVER come from an elected president, but must come from the lowest level on up.

Only problem I have with this is that by the higher people get in power the higher the chance they become currupt in one way or another. That is more a view on people in general instead of your comment. I agree that just voting in more of what is offered to us will never change anything.

 

[Scat]

That description sums up recent Republican and recent Democratic judges. It's not a reason to prefer one party over the other.

My only concern is that they follow the US Constitution when making decisions. Not their ideology, heart or some letter written by a former president to a colleague.

 

[Hantlers]

I don't think Warren Buffet is hated by too many people.

Warren Buffett doesn't have the same tax rates as other people. One of the reasons he calls for income tax to be raised is because most of his money comes from dividends, which is already taxed less than income tax. Notice how he never calls for dividend tax to be raised.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Warren Buffett doesn't have the same tax rates as other people. One of the reasons he calls for income tax to be raised is because most of his money comes from dividends, which is already taxed less than income tax. Notice how he never calls for dividend tax to be raised.

I'm pretty sure it's implied that is what he is talking about if that is the tax he is paying. He said he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary and he didn't think that was fair. He didn't have to break it down into what each tax is labeled.

Bill Gates said the same thing too.