Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Ed & Dave Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-05-2013, 09:10 PM  
Fat Elvis Fat Elvis is offline
Beard Merit Badge
 
Fat Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Casino cash: $5686
Does your perception of wealth distribution accurately reflect reality?

Just curious how close your (both conservatives and liberals) perception of wealth distribution reflects the reality of wealth distribution in the United States. Be honest. If our perceptions about reality are rightly or wrongly skewed one way or another, it helps to clarify why we (both liberals and conservatives) believe some of the things we do.

Posts: 6,734
Fat Elvis 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Fat Elvis 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Fat Elvis 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Fat Elvis 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Fat Elvis 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Fat Elvis 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Fat Elvis 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Fat Elvis 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Fat Elvis 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Fat Elvis 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Fat Elvis 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 07:50 PM   #61
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $7918
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 View Post
It is not just a few companies. It is an institutionalized problem.

I don't know why we judge the lower class welfare for their spending problems, yet don't judge the boards that are disproportionately compensating their executives. They are both a part of the problem, yet we always pick sides that it's one and not the other.
It is institutionalized but the companies connected to power are worse and more protected. Banks in particular are in bed with govt. But then we'd hear how all the common folk would suffer if they weren't bailed out.
__________________
Posts: 57,359
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 08:26 PM   #62
Pawnmower Pawnmower is online now
MVP
 
Pawnmower's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern California
Casino cash: $10498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
stupid shit
I know how to google....I found nothing useful or relevant in your post.

If your contention is 'total tax' is somehow unfairly paid by the poor, you are sadly misinformed...

http://www.iamcal.com/us-tax-sources/

As you can see, Income & property taxes account for 57% of taxes, sales taxes account for 24% , and 'all other taxes' (capital gains, estate, payroll...etc...) only account for 19%


If we simply assume the obvious:

1) rich people pay more income taxes
2) poor people in lower taxes brackets get most of their income taxes back via refunds and deductions
3)poor people do not pay property taxes
4)even the 'all other taxes' category is by far paid by the rich

I would like you to explain to me how the poor pay an unfair burden of taxes..

'google it' doesn't cut it
__________________
-------------------
(Your company name here)
Posts: 14,483
Pawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < Cassel
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 08:35 PM   #63
Pawnmower Pawnmower is online now
MVP
 
Pawnmower's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern California
Casino cash: $10498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
I'm a critic of entitlements as well. But you also have to consider how most lower class people are purchasing those cars, phones, and other extravagant crap. They're in debt up to their eyeballs. Mountains upon mountains of debt for stupid needless junk that they will never pay off. It's not that they can actually afford their extravagant poor lifestyle. They're constantly borrowing to afford the crap they don't need. It's not just free government money. The median household consumer debt is over $75,000. Overall, consumer debt in America has increased by a whopping 1700% since 1971. Americans have over $800B in credit card debt alone.

Let's not act like all poor people are getting a free government ride...
I agree there is some bullshit going on with loans..there are basically loan sharks (legal) now, that used to be illegal a generation ago...

Interest rates of 30% should be illegal. Period. I think places like rent-a-center and pay-day loans, and dept stores who give poor people easy credit at 25-30% rates should be stopped.

To me it is one example where govt regulation is needed...

That being said, plenty of blame lies on the individual....these people know they cant ever pay the debt off, yet buy stuff anyhow. They buy more car than they need, more TV, etc etc.....all the while collecting welfare paid by those who do work....or disability, when they actually could get a job in many cases (not most, of course).

Dogs and cats.....how much money is wasted on feeding the dogs and cats and other animals of the poor?

I have seen example after example of people on social security or section-8 housing, with JUNK (phones, cars, dogs, video game systems etc...) they do not need.
__________________
-------------------
(Your company name here)
Posts: 14,483
Pawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < Cassel
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 05:42 AM   #64
InChiefsHell InChiefsHell is offline
Rockin' yer FACE OFF!
 
InChiefsHell's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Casino cash: $7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pawnmower View Post
I agree there is some bullshit going on with loans..there are basically loan sharks (legal) now, that used to be illegal a generation ago...

Interest rates of 30% should be illegal. Period. I think places like rent-a-center and pay-day loans, and dept stores who give poor people easy credit at 25-30% rates should be stopped.

To me it is one example where govt regulation is needed...

That being said, plenty of blame lies on the individual....these people know they cant ever pay the debt off, yet buy stuff anyhow. They buy more car than they need, more TV, etc etc.....all the while collecting welfare paid by those who do work....or disability, when they actually could get a job in many cases (not most, of course).

Dogs and cats.....how much money is wasted on feeding the dogs and cats and other animals of the poor?

I have seen example after example of people on social security or section-8 housing, with JUNK (phones, cars, dogs, video game systems etc...) they do not need.
I remember when I was 20 or so and my girlfriend (now wife) lived with me in a crappy little apartment. We got a discover card with a 3k limit (this was 1990 or so) and I remember thinking "Hey, the payment is only like 100.00 a month, I can afford that!" And whack whack whack, we filled that card up with a ton of crap. Ended up borrowing more on other stuff to pay that thing off and "consolidate". I don't blame discover, I blame myself. It took us almost 15 years to get all out of debt from the stupid shit we did when we were young. If any blame goes to the credit card companies, it was that they made the credit available in the first place. But, it's a free country and nobody put a gun to my head. I was just young and stupid. And I paid for it...oh boy did I pay.
__________________

We have a million reasons for failure, but not one excuse...
Die Donks, DIE!!

A quote:
"Oh well, there's always next year. We'll be better then, you'll see..." - Every Chiefs fan for the last 42...crap...43 years...

Quit listening to all that crappy new music and check out HEADSTRONG!
Posts: 12,992
InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 06:11 AM   #65
chiefzilla1501 chiefzilla1501 is offline
MVP
 

Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $7446
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCWolfman View Post
Not me, I am clearly on record bashing both.

The stark reality is that one does provide the possibility fiscal opportunity for many while the other provides a definitive loss of funds for a number of taxpayers. Now the former may also take money from the latter, and that chills me as well.

But ignoring either while attacking the other is just plain stupid, no matter how fiscally conservative you are or how socially responsible you may be.
I'm a pro growth guy. When companies hoard cash instead of investing back into the economy, that destroys jobs and destroys future jobs. When you destroy jobs, you destroy spending power for a large portion of the population and you destroy tax revenue which puts a greater burden on any individual taxpayer. That's the way I view it. So when executives make $20M bonuses for stagnant or negative growth in his company, think about what that money could have been spent on whether that's improving an IT system, buying advertising, or investing in training for employees.

But yes, I agree that entitlements and executive comp are a big part of the problem. I've complained about executive comp for a while and got a lot of pushback from people saying that they are private sector workers and are entitled to earn more for themselves. That's simply not true. If executive comp were merit-based, that's one thing. But we all know they just aren't.
Posts: 20,266
chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 06:29 AM   #66
Loneiguana Loneiguana is online now
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pawnmower View Post
I know how to google....I found nothing useful or relevant in your post.

If your contention is 'total tax' is somehow unfairly paid by the poor, you are sadly misinformed...

http://www.iamcal.com/us-tax-sources/

As you can see, Income & property taxes account for 57% of taxes, sales taxes account for 24% , and 'all other taxes' (capital gains, estate, payroll...etc...) only account for 19%


If we simply assume the obvious:

1) rich people pay more income taxes
2) poor people in lower taxes brackets get most of their income taxes back via refunds and deductions
3)poor people do not pay property taxes
4)even the 'all other taxes' category is by far paid by the rich

I would like you to explain to me how the poor pay an unfair burden of taxes..

'google it' doesn't cut it
I never said that the poor pay more. If that is what you took out of that then you lack reading ability. I was pointing out how wrong your assumption was that the poor have a negative tax rate, which is why you found nothing useful in the post, you don't want to be wrong on that assumption. Easier to dehumanize the poor, and therefore have no concern for them, if we attach such negative qualities, isn't it?

Explain to how the poor have an unfair tax burden? Well, if you didn't read my post, then I don't know where to start. You should read those articles, they explain why one might argue that, though no one was. Again, it is in response to your stupid claim that they pay negative tax rates. Yes, you might read things you don't agree with, but we are adults, that's part of life. Go learn something. Here is an example I guess you are looking for?
""But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He’s paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who’s not getting a fair shake?" -- I assume you won't comprehend that based on your post, but I gotta try.

You cannot just look at the income tax
If you think poor people don't pay property tax you are an idiot.
If you think the rich don't get taxes back from the government, you are an idiot.
I know you didn't check out my links because the rich do not pay a greater percent of taxes than everyone else.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011...0-tax-avoiders

1) ExxonMobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. [Note: Our post last April reported that ExxonMobil was owed $46 million by the IRS.]

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
Posts: 3,911
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 06:41 AM   #67
Loneiguana Loneiguana is online now
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6075
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2694368.html

"While taxes rose for most Americans at the beginning of year, some big companies apparently paid no income taxes at all, according to a recent report.

Facebook paid no net corporate income taxes in the U.S. last year, according to a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning research and advocacy group. Instead, Facebook will rake in $429 million in net tax refunds for the year, the report said, citing Facebook's recent annual financial report. The company earned $1.1 billion in U.S. corporate profits last year.

Facebook reduced its tax burden mainly by taking advantage of the tax deductibility of executive stock options, linked to its initial public offering last year, the report said. Thanks to this one tax break, Facebook will save a total of $3.2 billion in taxes, according to the report.

Facebook didn't immediately respond to an e-mailed request for comment from The Huffington Post.

If the report's allegations prove true, it would be just one of many ways Facebook is cutting its tax burden. The company also paid a foreign tax rate of just 0.3 percent in 2011, according to the Guardian.

Facebook is one of many big companies that's faced accusations of avoiding taxes. Thirty of America's most profitable companies -- including General Electric, Boeing and Wells Fargo -- paid no net income taxes between 2008 and 2010, according to a 2011 report from Citizens for Tax Justice. President Barack Obama advocated for "getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and well-connected" in his State of the Union address earlier this week.

After-tax corporate profits have soared since 2000, according to Commerce Department data, as corporate profits have reached record highs and corporate tax avoidance has become increasingly common. Check out this graph of after-tax corporate profits:"
Posts: 3,911
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 06:44 AM   #68
Loneiguana Loneiguana is online now
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6075
This entire thread reminds me of this stupid analogy:

A CEO, a Tea Party member, a union member, and an unemployed person attempt to share a plate of ten cookies. The CEO takes 9 of the cookies, then turns to the Tea Party member and whispers "watch out for those two, they want to take your cookie."
Posts: 3,911
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 06:48 AM   #69
chiefzilla1501 chiefzilla1501 is offline
MVP
 

Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $7446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2694368.html

"While taxes rose for most Americans at the beginning of year, some big companies apparently paid no income taxes at all, according to a recent report.

Facebook paid no net corporate income taxes in the U.S. last year, according to a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning research and advocacy group. Instead, Facebook will rake in $429 million in net tax refunds for the year, the report said, citing Facebook's recent annual financial report. The company earned $1.1 billion in U.S. corporate profits last year.

Facebook reduced its tax burden mainly by taking advantage of the tax deductibility of executive stock options, linked to its initial public offering last year, the report said. Thanks to this one tax break, Facebook will save a total of $3.2 billion in taxes, according to the report.

Facebook didn't immediately respond to an e-mailed request for comment from The Huffington Post.

If the report's allegations prove true, it would be just one of many ways Facebook is cutting its tax burden. The company also paid a foreign tax rate of just 0.3 percent in 2011, according to the Guardian.

Facebook is one of many big companies that's faced accusations of avoiding taxes. Thirty of America's most profitable companies -- including General Electric, Boeing and Wells Fargo -- paid no net income taxes between 2008 and 2010, according to a 2011 report from Citizens for Tax Justice. President Barack Obama advocated for "getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and well-connected" in his State of the Union address earlier this week.

After-tax corporate profits have soared since 2000, according to Commerce Department data, as corporate profits have reached record highs and corporate tax avoidance has become increasingly common. Check out this graph of after-tax corporate profits:"
I have no problem with corporations paying lower taxes.

But the argument goes to shit when those tax breaks are being pocketed by a few executives instead of invested back into the company. Boards should be protecting shareholders against this crap, but they're often in cahoots with the executive board. Furthermore, too many corporations are rewarding short-term behaviors instead of long-term behaviors.

This is not an easy fix. It's not as easy as just lowering an executive's compensation. CEOs are crafty about driving performance for exactly what you reward them for. But there are plenty of obvious fixes that fix all of them. One big fix that's been reaping very nice dividends is "say on pay" where shareholders have significantly more say in decisions to oust bad leadership.
Posts: 20,266
chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 07:01 AM   #70
Loneiguana Loneiguana is online now
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6075
http://justicebeforecharity.org/welfare.php

Corporate Welfare
As we have seen, a large portion of TANF recipients have very serious problems that are out of their control--problems with health or disability, having a disabled family member that requires hours of care, child care needs, and serious transportation issues, for example.

This stands in ugly contrast to the phenomenon of corporate welfare. According to a 2011 report from Citizens for Tax Justice, for the tax years of 2008 to 2010--just three years--the United States government gave away $223 billion in corporate welfare. It is argued that the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35%--and this is true on paper--but this distinction is entirely meaningless as corporations have become so effective at avoiding paying their taxes. Here is their chart of corporations that paid no taxes or received a net tax benefit (corporate welfare) over that three year period:



In this list are fantastically profitable corporations. Verizon Communications, for example, made a staggering $33 billion in profits over the last three years, yet American taxpayers gave them a $950 million gift. What politician could possibly decide that a company with $33 billion in profits needs to be supported by a no-strings-attached bonus of $950 million? Despite these enormous profits and handsome gift paid for by American taxpayers, Verizon demanded that its union take pay cuts, preferring instead to pay executives.

While middle class families were dutifully paying taxes at a 30% rate, numerous corporations had double-digit negative tax rates. For example, instead of paying 35% taxes like they are supposed to, General Electric essentially taxed the government at 45%. Rather than paying 35% of their profits to the government, the government paid General Electric 45% of their total profits.

Here is a larger chart exposing how well corporations did in the years where they paid no taxes:



Do you recall a year where you made huge amounts of money and then claimed that American taxpayers owed you money?

Finally, CTJ provided a chart of the 25 greediest corporations over the three year period (note that this is a chart of total subsidies, not tax liability, as the two above charts are):



Wells Fargo again jumps out, with $17 billion dollars in subsidies. Goldman Sachs netted $3 billion in subsidies, despite cheating investors and almost destroying the world economy.

Handouts of taxpayer money to fantastically profitable companies cannot be justified, especially when we are concerned with budget deficits. Corporate welfare is far more expensive than welfare for the poor. Why is corporate welfare so seldom targeted by conservative budget hawks?

A criticism of this report might be that this study is not useful, since it measures extremely unusual and unrepresentative tax years. After all, 2008 to 2010 span a large section of the Great Recession. Unfortunately for us, this was not a temporary trend. In 2011, corporate taxes reached historic lows--corporate taxes were even lower than they were in 2008, 2009, or 2010.

Unfortunately, this is not the only type of corporate welfare permitted by our government:

Can the observation that Ireland, Bermuda and Luxembourg are three of the five jurisdictions where the US corporate sector earned the most profits reflect anything other than rampant tax sheltering? Anyone who doubts this should ponder the fact that in 2007, US corporate profits in Bermuda totalled 646 per cent of Bermudaís GDP.

Welfare for the Rich
Let's start with a thought experiment. Imagine that you are a hard-working American in need of health insurance. It's a tad expensive, so the government steps in and hands you a check for several thousand dollars to buy health insurance. You buy health insurance with some of your own money plus the money the government gave you to buy health insurance. Then you pay your taxes.

You just accepted a handout, didn't you?

Now, imagine that you are the same hard-working American, still in need of health insurance. But, instead of writing you a check for several thousand dollars to buy health insurance, they instead allow you to pay several thousand dollars less in taxes, provided you use the money saved to buy health insurance.

You just accepted a handout, didn't you?

This is a simplified version of American health care subsidies. In the real world, instead of you getting the tax benefit for purchasing health insurance, your employer does, but the result is the same. If you have employer-sponsored health care, your health insurance is heavily subsidized. Your "private insurance" is not private, but heavily reliant on government support. According to the conservative Cato Institute, these enormous subsidies cost an astounding $147 billion per year. This is a $147 billion handout to everyone who gets employer sponsored health care, probably including you. How does it feel to accept welfare?

"Private" health insurance is not private. It is heavily subsidized by the government. Unless you are very wealthy, you probably could not afford unsubsidized health insurance. As the Cato study points out, unsubsidized health insurance is twice as expensive as subsidized health insurance and of substantially lower quality. Would you really be interested in paying your own way? Or would you prefer to live on the government dole? (Actually, as the Cato study notes, employers do not generally "cash out" employees who do not accept health benefits, so the cost would be closer to quadroupling, not doubling). The "private" health care market is a complete failure, but that is not the point here. The point is that the government spends far more on welfare for the rich than welfare for the poor.

Welfare for the rich does not stop with employer-sponsored health care. There is a huge buffet of welfare for the rich, costing a whopping $1.2 trillion in 2010. By comparison, TANF costs $17 billion annually, or about 1% of what welfare for the rich costs. While some of this $1.2 trillion in welfare for the rich does benefit the poor and middle class, about 70% goes to the richest 20% of Americans and about 10% goes to the poorest 40% of Americans. This injustice is very striking visually:



Over $100 billion is spent each year on mortgage tax deductions. Briefly, because of the mortgage tax deduction, a mortgage can be paid for with pre-tax dollars, while rent must be paid for with post-tax dollars. Assume your neighbor pays 10% in taxes and has a mortgage that costs $100 per month. Each month, he will pay exactly that--$100.

But the situation is different for rent because a renter must pay with post-tax dollars. Assume that you pay $100 in rent each month. It is the same cost per month as your neighbor, but you also had to pay taxes on that $100. Assuming you have the same 10% tax rate as your neighbor, you needed to earn $111.11 in order to pay rent (because 10% of $111.11 is 11.11, leaving you with $100 after taxes). While your neighbor paid for his housing with $100 dollars, you had to pay $111.11. (This is a simplification because mortgages are usually more expensive than renting, but the principle--that home owners get a handout from the government each month that renters do not--holds)

Who owns their own home and pays a mortgage? Rich people. Who cannot afford to buy a home and has to pay rent? Poor people. This is the definition of welfare for the rich, and the numbers bear it out. Note that the richer you are, the more likely you are to accept this handout:



And, the richer you are, the more this tax break benefits you:



Should the top 1%--making in excess an average of $1.3 million per year--really be getting their mansions subsidized?

The mortgage tax deduction cannot be said to encourage home ownership. More Canadian families (69%) are home owners than American families (67.2%)--and Canada offers no tax incentive to own homes. If home ownership really is a worthwhile goal, there are clearly ways to attain it without giving trillions in dollars of handouts to people who don't need them. In any case, it needs to be acknowledged that our government spends far more on housing assistance for the rich than on housing assistance for the poor.

No matter how the numbers are run, the mortgage tax deduction is a handout for the rich. This program is supposedly aimed at helping the lower and middle classes buy a house, but the money is disproportionately given to the rich (subsidizing mansions):



And this pattern--programs supposedly to help ordinary people--wind up getting used disproportionately by the rich. Subsidizing retirement savings (through 401k's, for example) is another $150 billion per year handout. Who has a 401(k)? Rich people. Who does not have a 401(k)? Poor people. Welfare for the rich, yet again.

The debate over welfare is so ugly because cutting welfare for the poor (who need it) is so popular, while cutting welfare for the rich is never on the table. Remember, welfare for the rich cost $1.2 trillion in 2010, dwarfing welfare for the poor:



Food stamps, TANF, and housing vouchers for the poor--put together--cost less than 10% of welfare for the rich (unemployment benefits are paid out to all unemployed workers, whether rich or poor). And, remember, the $1.2 trillion figure does not include corporate welfare. Also, food stamps are an unusually effective program, extremely efficient with extremely low levels of fraud and waste.

Rich people are way more likely to go to college than poor people. Yet tax expenditures for student debt costs the government $23 billion each year--this amount would theoretically be enough to offer free, universal college education. Obviously, "private" schools are not actually private, since they are so heavily subsidized by, and would not exist without, government assistance.

It is important to remember that these deductions are--basically--hidden. It is easy to look up how big the budget for Housing and Urban Development is, but not so easy to find information on how expensive the mortgage tax deduction is:

If Americans who either rent or own their homes outright were asked to accept a tax increase of $150 billion in order to subsidize the mortgage payments of their indebted friends, it seems unlikely they would find that appealing. The same goes for asking Americans who donít get health insurance through their work to spend $100 billion or so annually subsidizing the benefits for those who do. Of course, thatís exactly whatís happening right now, but itís hidden in the tax code, so most Americans donít know it and canít protest it.

If you did not know you were accepting welfare for the rich, you are not alone:



Keep in mind two things. First, it is not that only the rich benefit from welfare for the rich. It is that the rich benefit disproportionately from welfare for the rich--as we saw above, 70% of welfare for the rich actually does go to the rich, even though the programs were designed to help the poor and middle class. Second, so many people attack welfare for the poor, even though welfare for the rich is so much more expensive. The argument is not that the government should never subsidize college loans or retirement savings, per se. But to claim that you do not benefit from any government program when you accept government handouts (like employer-sponsored health insurance, for example), is hypocrisy. The rich tisk-tisk the poor for accepting welfare for the poor--like food stamps and TANF--while they help themselves to far more generous--and far more expensive--government handouts.

Do 47% of Americans pay zero taxes?
Absolutely not. 46% of Americans did not have any federal income tax liability, but this is not the full story. Everyone with a job pays payroll taxes, the federal taxes that pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance. Everyone who drives pays state and federal gas taxes. People without federal income tax liabilities can have state or local income tax liabilities. And anyone who buys anything is subject to sales taxes.

But among the 47% of Americans who do not have federal income tax liability, almost half are retired. That's right--retirees do not pay federal income taxes because they do not have income--because they are retired. The rest are so poor that they do not earn enough money to actually have a federal income tax liability (some are also students, living on student loans, not earning enough have a federal income tax liability).

Actually, a big reason why so many people do not have an income tax liability is because of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is actually a really good program. Basically, the EITC is a refundable tax credit for working families with children. Ronald Reagan once called it ďthe best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job-creation measure to come out of Congress.Ē And, it works. The majority of people receiving the EITC in a given year only receive it for one or two years total, and then go on to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes. Basically, the program helps poor families get ahead. With the breathing room the EITC gives them, they are able to climb the pay ladder, quickly earning enough so that they no longer qualify for the EITC. The EITC in the long run results in more taxes being paid.

Eliminating this program would greatly increase the number of people with federal income tax liabilities. Do we really want to axe this program?

With all this evidence, it seems that those who argue for lower taxes do not really mean it. It is ok for the rich to avoid paying taxes, but not for the poor to do the same. The real crime is not the people who are so poor that the federal government has decided that they should not pay taxes. The real crimes are (1) that we have so many poor people and (2) the CEO's who pay less in taxes than their secretaries:



Who is a better tax dodger? The top 1% or poor people?
Posts: 3,911
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 09:00 AM   #71
InChiefsHell InChiefsHell is offline
Rockin' yer FACE OFF!
 
InChiefsHell's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Casino cash: $7752
would you kindly stop spamming the shit out of this thread?!?
__________________

We have a million reasons for failure, but not one excuse...
Die Donks, DIE!!

A quote:
"Oh well, there's always next year. We'll be better then, you'll see..." - Every Chiefs fan for the last 42...crap...43 years...

Quit listening to all that crappy new music and check out HEADSTRONG!
Posts: 12,992
InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 09:31 AM   #72
Loneiguana Loneiguana is online now
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by InChiefsHell View Post
would you kindly stop spamming the shit out of this thread?!?
Sure, when conservative stop lying about the poor. When people stop degrading and blaming the problems of this country on the least powerful segment of our country.

When the same lies are repeated and repeated, or shall we say spammed, by conservatives, the truth deserves the same treatment.

I know its a lot of words, but the truth is more complex than the poor are lazy, or don't pay taxes or any other stupid lies conservatives repeat.
Posts: 3,911
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 09:42 AM   #73
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
Sure, when conservative stop lying about the poor. When people stop degrading and blaming the problems of this country on the least powerful segment of our country.

When the same lies are repeated and repeated, or shall we say spammed, by conservatives, the truth deserves the same treatment.

I know its a lot of words, but the truth is more complex than the poor are lazy, or don't pay taxes or any other stupid lies conservatives repeat.
Conservatives tell hard truths. I'm sorry for your pain.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 09:49 AM   #74
InChiefsHell InChiefsHell is offline
Rockin' yer FACE OFF!
 
InChiefsHell's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Casino cash: $7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Conservatives tell hard truths. I'm sorry for your pain.
Dammit Pat, now he's gonna post another leftist novel that nobody will read...nice going...
__________________

We have a million reasons for failure, but not one excuse...
Die Donks, DIE!!

A quote:
"Oh well, there's always next year. We'll be better then, you'll see..." - Every Chiefs fan for the last 42...crap...43 years...

Quit listening to all that crappy new music and check out HEADSTRONG!
Posts: 12,992
InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 11:58 AM   #75
Pawnmower Pawnmower is online now
MVP
 
Pawnmower's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern California
Casino cash: $10498
The top 20% wealthiest people pay 67.9% of the taxes

The Bottom 20% pay 0.3% (thhe TENTHS of a percent)

the 60% in the middle pay about 32%

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-share-taxes/


There's just no way to get around this.......is three TENTHS of one percent too much of a burden for you?

Is 70 percent of the burden falling on 20% of the population not enough for you?


the middle 60% of the population paying 30% of the taxes seem out of line?


Cry me a river
__________________
-------------------
(Your company name here)
Posts: 14,483
Pawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < CasselPawnmower < Cassel
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.