• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Entitlements?

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Nobody pays anyone more than their worth for very long or they go broke.

The top 1% is worth every penny where the 20,000 dollar guy is lucky to even have a job. If this person is so under paid, why not find a better job, learn a trade or go back to school and make something of themselves instead of expecting to be a mediocre employee making excellent pay?
You really don't know what it's like do you?
There are plenty of companies that pay large salaries to executives and they are ok. Microsoft is a very good example of such a company.
I would LOVE to have a good paying job, but that is still many years off. Actually it's been stated many times that unless you are going to be a doctor or scientist then college is not worth it because the little bit of extra earning potential you'll have really won't offset the debt you rack up.
And how in the hell is someone who sits in an air conditioned and cushioned office and works no more than 40 hours a week worth more than the employees who sweat and labor away in the heat and cold, who work 60 or more hours? Because the reality is those who soak up all the money wouldn't have **** if it wasn't for the people who they think complain too much when they haven't had a weekend off in months.
And the "$20,000 guy is lucky to have a job" is a slap in the face! I have known many excellent and hard working employees that make less than $20,000 because that is all there is. Especially today when jobs are hard to come by, if you get minimum wage it won't be enough but it's that or nothing. Try saying something like that in a farming community were hard is the ONLY way to work if you want people to like you, where low paying jobs are pretty much all that's there, and see how well liked you'll be. Actually I can think of quite a few people who would not even talk to you with that mind set.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
You really don't know what it's like do you?
There are plenty of companies that pay large salaries to executives and they are ok. Microsoft is a very good example of such a company.
I would LOVE to have a good paying job, but that is still many years off. Actually it's been stated many times that unless you are going to be a doctor or scientist then college is not worth it because the little bit of extra earning potential you'll have really won't offset the debt you rack up.
And how in the hell is someone who sits in an air conditioned and cushioned office and works no more than 40 hours a week worth more than the employees who sweat and labor away in the heat and cold, who work 60 or more hours? Because the reality is those who soak up all the money wouldn't have **** if it wasn't for the people who they think complain too much when they haven't had a weekend off in months.
And the "$20,000 guy is lucky to have a job" is a slap in the face! I have known many excellent and hard working employees that make less than $20,000 because that is all there is. Especially today when jobs are hard to come by, if you get minimum wage it won't be enough but it's that or nothing. Try saying something like that in a farming community were hard is the ONLY way to work if you want people to like you, where low paying jobs are pretty much all that's there, and see how well liked you'll be. Actually I can think of quite a few people who would not even talk to you with that mind set.

While I am upsetting everyone, just remember that I said EVERYONE NEEDS TO PAY MORE TAXES. Dust1n hit the nail on the head, rich folks don't need more money to invest in employing people, they have enough already.

The reason wages are stagnant for the common worker is because our government wants us to compete globally. That means we are shipping jobs out of the country at an alarming rate because American workers have always made more money than the the rest of the world.

Yes, there are workers in Germany that make more than us. Why? Because they don't allow a bunch of cheap products to invade their country.

You want a decent wage and everyone to get back to work? Close the borders and require the American consumer to buy stuff made in America.

There has been a recent interest in unions lately. If you want to go that route, we must all buy American again if we want to be gainfully employed.

Think about it, every since we started trading with China, Americans have had to scramble to find jobs in the service industry with the exception of the construction jobs. Why? You can't import houses and commercial buildings.

Medical jobs was the leading service industry but now we are working on reducing medical expenses. When doctors and nurses see their wages stagnate in the name of competition, two things will happen. The quality of service will be reduced and these jobs will become less desirable like the rest of American jobs have.

Don't blame the rich guys, they are still trying to compete globally. The thing is, they have cut pay checks to the bone and still have to consider pulling the plug because American labor is too high compared to the rest of the world.

SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE. WE CANNOT COMPETE GLOBALLY AND MAINTAIN THE MIDDLE CLASS LIFE STYLE!

If we do not shut down trade with other countries and start making things ourselves again, we will become a nation of haves and have nots.

America has always succeeded in the past because we made the best stuff not the cheapest stuff.

Actually, I'm surprised that we still can employ 18 out of 20 workers right now.

What are we going to do when unemployment gets to 20% or higher? That is where we are headed unless we change something.

Quit blaming Wall Street and focus on the free trade agreements Washington has imposed upon all of us.

You want a living wage? Supply and demand baby! Cut the supply of cheap goods and we will have a demand that will require more jobs than we can handle.

When there are more jobs than people, wages will rise. It's quite simple really.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'd like to point out the down side of protectionism. Higher domestic wages would be offset to some extent by higher prices for goods, so we'd see more inflation.
With this comes tax bracket creep. Would we really be better off? While I don't rule out possible positive effects of tariffs, I'd prefer that we focus on one of
the other root causes of our competitive decline - regulatory burdens & tax costs. (For my lefty friends, let me remind that I don't want to sacrifice safety or do
away with taxes.) I've complained ad nauseum about about specific tax & regulatory excesses, but suffice to say that we need a more thoughtful & systematic
approach to both. We could be more competitive than we are.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
I'd like to point out the down side of protectionism. Higher domestic wages would be offset to some extent by higher prices for goods, so we'd see more inflation.
With this comes tax bracket creep. Would we really be better off? While I don't rule out possible positive effects of tariffs, I'd prefer that we focus on one of
the other root causes of our competitive decline - regulatory burdens & tax costs. (For my lefty friends, let me remind that I don't want to sacrifice safety or do
away with taxes.) I've complained ad nauseum about about specific tax & regulatory excesses, but suffice to say that we need a more thoughtful & systematic
approach to both. We could be more competitive than we are.

Inflation would enable us to pay off our debt with cheap dollars.

Inflation would raise real estate values.

You can make a boat load of money riding the inflation train.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Inflation would enable us to pay off our debt with cheap dollars.
Inflation would raise real estate values.
You can make a boat load of money riding the inflation train.
That's my plan....If I can keep my property long enuf, the dollars I owe will shrink relative to real estate value.
But of course, inflation also drives up interest rates I must pay. I won't predict what will happen until after it happens.
Will the rent I can charge also rise? It hasn't yet.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
That's my plan....If I can keep my property long enuf, the dollars I owe will shrink relative to real estate value.
But of course, inflation also drives up interest rates I must pay. I won't predict what will happen until after it happens.
Will the rent I can charge also rise? It hasn't yet.

Ah yes, but higher interest will help retirement plans.

It might give banks incentive to loan again as well.

I'm also thinking 5,000 dollar gold.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe everyone should have to pay something and many should pay more.
The bottom 50% of Americans own only 2.5% of total wealth.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2

Therefore, it should be "fair" for them to pay 2.5% or less of the annual tax revenue. And if it's a progressive system, then that number should drop further, and since it's near zero to begin with why not just go to zero?

The budget can't be balanced on the backs of the 50% because they don't have anything.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Ah yes, but higher interest will help retirement plans.
Help which retirees will need in order to keep up with inflation.
Monetary policy changes won't help us, & could hurt us by tax bracket creep.

It might give banks incentive to loan again as well.
Regulatory hurdles would have to be eased too. That's a problem we're facing now.
 
Last edited:

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Then we're in full agreement. So, since the people who are at all able are already paying, then I guess we're OK, right?

Probably not.

I believe that everyone should be paying SOME federal income tax.

When someone has made an investment into a system, they are more likely to see and appreciate the value, and to demand more responsibility from those who they vote in to safeguard that system.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
The bottom 50% of Americans own only 2.5% of total wealth.
Wealth And Inequality In America

Therefore, it should be "fair" for them to pay 2.5% or less of the annual tax revenue. And if it's a progressive system, then that number should drop further, and since it's near zero to begin with why not just go to zero?

The budget can't be balanced on the backs of the 50% because they don't have anything.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that 50 percent of US citizens cannot afford to pay any federal income tax. I don't see a 50 percent poverty rate.

91 percent of Americans have a cell phone
99 percent of Americans have a television
53 percent of Americans have a big screen TV
More than half of US households have THREE OR MORE televisions
74 percent of Americans have internet access from home
70 percent of Americans regularly play video games
54 percent of American homes have at least one gaming system
The average American eats out five times a week
Americans own an average of 2.28 vehicles per household
68 percent of Americans are overweight or obese
25 percent of Americans own their home WITHOUT a mortgage
57 percent of Americans have a degree or some college education

Don't ask - I'm not going to post all these sources. Just google each stat and you'll easily find them.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that 50 percent of US citizens cannot afford to pay any federal income tax. I don't see a 50 percent poverty rate.

91 percent of Americans have a cell phone
99 percent of Americans have a television
53 percent of Americans have a big screen TV
More than half of US households have THREE OR MORE televisions
74 percent of Americans have internet access from home
70 percent of Americans regularly play video games
54 percent of American homes have at least one gaming system
The average American eats out five times a week
Americans own an average of 2.28 vehicles per household
68 percent of Americans are overweight or obese
25 percent of Americans own their home WITHOUT a mortgage
57 percent of Americans have a degree or some college education

Don't ask - I'm not going to post all these sources. Just google each stat and you'll easily find them.
This doesn't address the presented math, though.

If the bottom 50% of Americans only own 2.5% of the wealth, do you believe they should pay more than 2.5% of the annual tax revenue of the federal government?

As for some of those- most of those things are cheap. A tv is a few hundred dollars, cars and cell phones are almost necessary these days to have a job and such, depending on where one lives. And the 57 percent with a degree or "some" college is misleading, because you can get "some" college with a single course.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The bottom 50% of Americans own only 2.5% of total wealth.
Wealth And Inequality In America

Therefore, it should be "fair" for them to pay 2.5% or less of the annual tax revenue. And if it's a progressive system, then that number should drop further, and since it's near zero to begin with why not just go to zero?

The budget can't be balanced on the backs of the 50% because they don't have anything.
Having & earning are 2 different things. I'd base taxation on income rather than equity, since the latter approach could have a wasting effect on citizens.
(We've seen this in real estate, where property taxes are based upon the taxing authority's convenient over-assessment of value, without regard to actual
income generated by the property. One fella I know in NY, pays more per year in taxes than he paid for the property. Industry has fled that area, of course.)
I also see a corrosive effect on society if we face a significant portion (becoming a majority?) of the voting public who receive benefits, yet pay no tax.
It portends a cultural shift towards entitlement to largess from others.....IMO.
 
Last edited:

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Having & earning are 2 different things. I'd base taxation on income rather than equity, since the latter approach could have a wasting effect on citizens.
I also see a corrosive effect on society if we face a significant portion (becoming a majority?) of the voting public who receive benefits, yet pay no tax.
It portends a cultural shift towards entitlement to largess from others.....IMO.
So you're in favor of the group that has 2.5% of the wealth paying more than 2.5% of the total tax revenue?

Taxing equity only has a wasting effect if you tax too much. If the tax on equity brings in a comparable amount to what the current tax on income brings in, then it won't have any wasting effect. Instead, it would just shift the tax burden to where the wealth really is.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So you're in favor of the group that has 2.5% of the wealth paying more than 2.5% of the total tax revenue?
How did you deduce that conclusion?
I only say that their ride should not be gratis.....for their edification

Taxing equity only has a wasting effect if you tax too much. If the tax on equity brings in a comparable amount to what the current tax on income brings in, then it won't have any wasting effect. Instead, it would just shift the tax burden to where the wealth really is.
The problem I see is that it's easier to tax equity too much, since it isn't closely related to income.
Taxing income with a percentage is far less likely to take all that is earned (although that can
happen in complex systems with high marginal rates & high deductions).
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If we really want to fix things, everyone will have to do more than they presently are.
I'll have to depend upon you guys to do more.....I'm at the end of my useful life.
I'm only good for doggerel, drivel & decay these days.
So listen up, Penumbra....work harder...I need the money.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How did you deduce that conclusion?
I only say that their ride should not be gratis.....for their edification

The problem I see is that it's easier to tax equity too much, since it isn't closely related to income.
Taxing income with a percentage is far less likely to take all that is earned (although that can
happen in complex systems with high marginal rates & high deductions).
But taxing income when not taking into account the difference between income and expenditure leaves the tax burden distributed on the middle class or lower middle class.

There is pretty much a minimum amount of expenditure needed to maintain a life with reasonable comfort and dignity. A place to live, food, a way to get around, means to communicate, a way to afford health care, school for children. Income above that is all bonus. If a person's income is only a bit above that level, then they're not accumulating almost any wealth. But if they're still being taxed significantly, or even being asked to take more of the tax burden, while America has the highest income inequality in the developed world, I find that odd.

The specifics of what tax is based on can very, and I'm open to a number of ways (I prefer a shift towards progressive consumption taxes, personally), but if the bottom 50% that has 2.5% of the wealth is paying more than 2.5% of the total tax, then I think the system is incorrect.

If we really want to fix things, everyone will have to do more than they presently are.
More to what extent, and in what proportion?

Should those that control 2.5% of the wealth pay more than 2.5% of the total tax income, while those that control 30% of the wealth pay less than 30% of the total tax income?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
But taxing income when not taking into account the difference between income and expenditure leaves the tax burden distributed on the middle class or lower middle class.
There is pretty much a minimum amount of expenditure needed to maintain a life with reasonable comfort and dignity. A place to live, food, a way to get around, means to communicate, a way to afford health care, school for children. Income above that is all bonus. If a person's income is only a bit above that level, then they're not accumulating almost any wealth. But if they're still being taxed significantly, or even being asked to take more of the tax burden, while America has the highest income inequality in the developed world, I find that odd.
I don't argue against those points.

The specifics of what tax is based on can very, and I'm open to a number of ways (I prefer a shift towards progressive consumption taxes, personally), but if the bottom 50% that has 2.5% of the wealth is paying more than 2.5% of the total tax, then I think the system is incorrect.
I don't argue against that either.
I'm speaking primarily against 2 things:
1) A free ride
2) Taxation which discourages production or is confiscatory
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
The rich should sacrifice a greater portion but that should not relieve anyone else from participating in the system and being responsible.

There is going to have to be some pain for there to be any gain.

We are all in this together right?
 
Top