Welfare Pays More Than Minimum Wage In 35 States

[Dirty Penguin]

Anyone who calls low tax rates "welfare" is playing a word game. Welfare is to take money from a taxpayer, & give it to the recipient. Low tax rates are just less money taken from the taxpayer than higher rates would.

Yeah, but it seems it's welfare in reverse. To take less from the top needs to be made up some how so income is then distributed upward. States realize this all the time. Bobby Jindal and other conservatives have promoted this and realize it doesn't really work and it isn't sustainable long term. He proposed cutting/eliminating corporate taxes in his state but realized he also needed to fund his local government despite all the cutting he's done. His proposal was to raise sales taxes on the working poor/middle class even though his state has one of the the highest sales tax on its people in the country. So basically low to no taxes on the top means income is distributed from the bottom up.

Tax rate structure is a different issue from the give-aways we see to politically connected companies, ie, they don't just pay low rates, the gov gives them money, eg, bail-outs, Solyndra. So let's avoid straw men

You mean red herrings such as dropping names such as you just did. Shouldn't we be avoiding that too?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, but it seems it's welfare in reverse.

Seeming & being are sometimes different.

You mean red herrings such as dropping names such as you just did. Shouldn't we be avoiding that too?

Do you know what "red herring" means?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think I was the one who started the whole "low taxes are welfare" argument. I see no reason why it isn't. If you have two friends. You give 5 dollars to each friend. To one friend you give him a five dollar bill. The other friend already owes you 15 dollars so you elimiate that from what they owe you so now he only gives you 10 dollars.

Its the same situation. People have now been fooled into thinking that the current tax rates and effective tax rates are normal.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think I was the one who started the whole "low taxes are welfare" argument. I see no reason why it isn't. If you have two friends. You give 5 dollars to each friend. To one friend you give him a five dollar bill. The other friend already owes you 15 dollars so you elimiate that from what they owe you so now he only gives you 10 dollars.

I covered it earlier. Did you miss it?
It's a different perspective. You start out with the premise that someone owes money (without ever borrowing it, or agreeing to the debt), therefore to take less than what is owed is "welfare". But I don't buy the inherent entitlement of government to such a large share of people's money. To take money from Bob, & give it to Tom is "welfare". To merely reduce the imposed burden, ie, what is taken from Bob, is not "welfare".

Its the same situation. People have now been fooled into thinking that the current tax rates and effective tax rates are normal.

"Normal" is inapplicable, since rates bounce around. And rates are only part of the picture, since accounting methods imposed by the IRS & deductibility of expenses have great effect, & are also subject to change. I have no idea what is normal, but I know the direction I'd like things to move.

 

[4consideration]

Yeah, but it seems it's welfare in reverse. To take less from the top needs to be made up some how so income is then distributed upward. States realize this all the time. Bobby Jindal and other conservatives have promoted this and realize it doesn't really work and it isn't sustainable long term. He proposed cutting/eliminating corporate taxes in his state but realized he also needed to fund his local government despite all the cutting he's done. His proposal was to raise sales taxes on the working poor/middle class even though his state has one of the the highest sales tax on its people in the country. So basically low to no taxes on the top means income is distributed from the bottom up.

(My highlighting)

How do you figure that Louisiana's state sales at 4% is one of the highest in the country?
Sales Tax Rates By State 2013 - Tax-Rates.org

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Seeming & being are sometimes different.

Which is why I cited Bobby Jindal and his proposal..which he had to withdraw because he realized that what he was proposing over the long term wasn't going to work.

Do you know what "red herring" means?

Yep...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

To take money from Bob, & give it to Tom is "welfare". To merely reduce the imposed burden, ie, what is taken from Bob, is not "welfare".

But who pays for Bob's tax reduction?

 

[Revoltingest]

But who pays for Bob's tax reduction?

If I don't steal $20 from you, who will pay me for it?
You welfare queen!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I covered it earlier. Did you miss it?
It's a different perspective. You start out with the premise that someone owes money (without ever borrowing it, or agreeing to the debt), therefore to take less than what is owed is "welfare". But I don't buy the inherent entitlement of government to such a large share of people's money. To take money from Bob, & give it to Tom is "welfare". To merely reduce the imposed burden, ie, what is taken from Bob, is not "welfare".

True. I have the premis that the more you make the more you should give back to the community. Its not an argument simply from humanitarian roots but that it does have evidence to work the best in keeping a healthy economy and creating a society where equality is at least somewhat possible. So I do argument from a standpoint that there is an inherent debt to the government by all.

"Normal" is inapplicable, since rates bounce around. And rates are only part of the picture, since accounting methods imposed by the IRS & deductibility of expenses have great effect, & are also subject to change. I have no idea what is normal, but I know the direction I'd like things to move.

I suppose I have to concede this point to you. Though at the same time it negates the argument that taxes are "too high" by any comparison.

 

[Revoltingest]

True. I have the premis that the more you make the more you should give back to the community. Its not an argument simply from humanitarian roots but that it does have evidence to work the best in keeping a healthy economy and creating a society where equality is at least somewhat possible. So I do argument from a standpoint that there is an inherent debt to the government by all.
I suppose I have to concede this point to you. Though at the same time it negates the argument that taxes are "too high" by any comparison.

The argument is about what the level of taxation should be.
You & the filthy penguin like it high, at least for other people.
I like it low for everyone. Of course, you'll have to give up
voting for politicians who love wars & corporate welfare.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The argument is about what the level of taxation should be.
You & the filthy penguin like it high. I like it low.

It is a different discussion than the thread intends but i'll go into it anyway.

Liberitarian pollicies are always that of smaller government. I also agree that the government should be smaller in certain places but larger in others. Our education system needs to be higher, our health care system needs a socialistic touch and I could go on. All of these programs and politices cost money. Lots of money. Regulation costs money. Regulation is needed to prevent capitalism from becoming feudalism.

Also when people get enough money they can litterally break the system. To prevent that higher taxation works as a buffer to stop them from shooting up to high or breaking the game. My personal opinion is that taxation of individuals should actaully be much lower than it is right now. My main issue isn't even with the "uber wealthy" but corporations.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

(My highlighting)

How do you figure that Louisiana's state sales at 4% is one of the highest in the country?
Sales Tax Rates By State 2013 - Tax-Rates.org

My bad...I should have said highest combined local and state tax. It's tax rate is low but under his proposal it would jump, at least one article I read put the hike at almost 2%, while eliminating 200 exemption but offering a rebate for low/middle class residents. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how the math could work though.

As Gov. Jindal's sales tax target rises, does support drop?: James Varney | NOLA.com

Gov. Bobby Jindal's proposal to eliminate the state's income and corporate taxes would raise the state sales tax to 5.88 percent, eliminate about 200 exemptions and include a rebate for middle- and low-income residents as well as for some retirees.

The planned increase in the sales tax would raise the current rate by about 47 percent and would come on top of local sales taxes. Residents in New Orleans, for example, would pay a combined rate of about 11 percent under the plan.

And if raising it from 4% to 5.88% wasn't bad enough...they would have actually set it at 6.25% according to another article I read.

As Gov. Jindal's sales tax target rises, does support drop?: James Varney | NOLA.com

Earlier, the administration said the state sales tax would have to rise from 4 percent to 5.88 percent to raise the same amount of money. Actually, Barfield said Thursday, the new rate will have to be 6.25 percent.

I love it when people like this propose raising my sales tax. It makes me buy in bulk more to reduce my trips to the store. I also shop online and any local shopping I do I take my coupon book with me.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If I don't steal $20 from you, who will pay me for it?
You welfare queen!

Cute!

I'm just saying....

I'm all for lower corporate taxes but not at my expense. If we're going to be cutting their taxes then we should also eliminate as many of their tax expenditures as well as subsidies.

Yes. I'm for unemployment insurance and public assistance but I don't view them as something that should be used and viewed as one's sole source of income, at least not long term.

As someone who works in the education field I believe that these programs along with programs to help retrain people for the workforce are essential and can be effective.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It is a different discussion than the thread intends but i'll go into it anyway.

Liberitarian pollicies are always that of smaller government. I also agree that the government should be smaller in certain places but larger in others. Our education system needs to be higher, our health care system needs a socialistic touch and I could go on. All of these programs and politices cost money. Lots of money. Regulation costs money. Regulation is needed to prevent capitalism from becoming feudalism.

Also when people get enough money they can litterally break the system. To prevent that higher taxation works as a buffer to stop them from shooting up to high or breaking the game. My personal opinion is that taxation of individuals should actaully be much lower than it is right now. My main issue isn't even with the "uber wealthy" but corporations.

^This......:yes:

 

[freethinker44]

Saw this meme and it reminded me of this discussion.

And this...

And this...

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm all for lower corporate taxes but not at my expense. If we're going to be cutting their taxes then we should also eliminate as many of their tax expenditures as well as subsidies.

To "eliminate many of their tax expenditures" is their goal.
How do you define a subsidy?
I'd say it's "giving them money or trade restrictions in their favor", not "charging them lower taxes, which is just taking less of their money which they earned. I imagine that your perspective is different since yer one of those sucking on the government teat, so naturally you feel entitled to other people's money. I'm the opposite, since gubmint erects barriers to my business, service stink, cops just get in the way when they aren't being useless, & now Obama wants to attack Syria, which is of no benefit to me whatsoever.

Yes. I'm for unemployment insurance and public assistance but I don't view them as something that should be used and viewed as one's sole source of income, at least not long term.

The current system imposes no cost upon the employee collecting it, which discourages seeking employment. I favor a co-pay system where both employee & employer contribute, each based upon one's own record of laying off or being layed off. If the employee must pay back a portion of what he collects, then he'll think twice about milking the system.

As someone who works in the education field I believe that these programs along with programs to help retrain people for the workforce are essential and can be effective.

Retraining is better than a paid vacation for non-workers. Semi-detente here...woo hoo!

 

[Levite]

I think that this is more of a condemnation of absurdly low minimum wages than it is a condemnation of too-lavish welfare programs.

But you're right in one respect: getting off welfare can often mean a major financial hit. This is one big reason why things like universal health care (REAL universal health care) are so important.

Yes, this is the real issue. The problem is not high welfare payments, the problem is ridiculously insufficient minimum wages, lack of real universal health care, lack of sufficient educational grants and interest-free student loans, lack of adequate job/career training and counseling, and so forth.

This is then complicated by the fact that welfare assistance programs are often structured in such a way that people who are slowly gaining work and sufficient pay to be self-sufficient are sabotaged by having assistance-thresholds set far too low, so that if they have even part-time work, they lose all their assistance benefits before they can get enough work to become self-sufficient. The system is constructed not to help them wean themselves off assistance over time, but to be chained to assistance unless they just happen to miraculously find an amazingly well-paid full-time work opportunity.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I imagine that your perspective is different since yer one of those sucking on the government teat, so naturally you feel entitled to other people's money.

Hold on here. I've worked since I was a teenager. As soon as I was legally able to get a work permit I had a job. I was searching for a job prior to getting my work permit. I've since held a job and taught my kids the value of work and will teach it to my grand kids provided I'm around long enough when they begin looking for their first job.
Everything I have I've worked and worked hard for.....

Retraining is better than a paid vacation for non-workers. Semi-detente here...woo hoo!

Oh, please...How much do you think the average person receives in monthly public assistance? I work with plenty of families in the community and what they receive isn't vacation money. The majority of them work, a few are veterans and a few are grandparents taking care of grand children.

 

[freethinker44]

This is then complicated by the fact that welfare assistance programs are often structured in such a way that people who are slowly gaining work and sufficient pay to be self-sufficient are sabotaged by having assistance-thresholds set far too low, so that if they have even part-time work, they lose all their assistance benefits before they can get enough work to become self-sufficient. The system is constructed not to help them wean themselves off assistance over time, but to be chained to assistance unless they just happen to miraculously find an amazingly well-paid full-time work opportunity.

:yes: I know people who got caught in the system this way. Bureaucracies have a way of trapping people like that. My cousin was in this situation for a while. He was working in a factory full-time through a temp agency and they wanted to hire him and promote him, but he had to turn it down because the extra few hundred dollars a month mean he would have lost much more than that in SNAP and Medicaid for his kids.

Sure, you can make more in the long run by taking the cut in benefits, but when you have kids to feed, they are hungry now not two years from now.

He finally found a job that he can survive on without benefits, but he works 70 to 80 hours over seven days a week for just under 30,000 a year. Hows that for a "paid vacation". I know it probably blows some people's minds that someone could work full-time with over-time and still not be able to survive, but those of us near the bottom know that it happens... a lot.

They need to work it so the loss in benefits matches the extra money you get. Like if you get promoted and make an extra 200 a month, your benefits decrease by 200 and not 400 or 500 or more.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hold on here. I've worked since I was a teenager. As soon as I was legally able to get a work permit I had a job. I was searching for a job prior to getting my work permit. I've since held a job and taught my kids the value of work and will teach it to my grand kids provided I'm around long enough when they begin looking for their first job.
Everything I have I've worked and worked hard for.....

Geeze....I'm just bust'n yer chops for being a gubmint employee.
But our perspectives do differ, since I'm a business owner.
I see taxes I pay as my money they take, not a return of their money.

Oh, please...How much do you think the average person receives in monthly public assistance? I work with plenty of families in the community and what they receive isn't vacation money. The majority of them work, a few are veterans and a few are grandparents taking care of grand children.

My "paid vacation" reference is to many people I've known who treat unemployment insurance as exactly that.
They didn't look for a job until it was about to run out. Yes, it actually happens with real people. Moreover,
under some circumstances in MI, employees can collect unemployment from employers while still working
for them, even after turning down offers of more hours. A tailor shop owner I know had this happen.