Time to tax the poor?

seems unnecessary and i think it is a bad idea. the rich hardly pay taxes and they obviously are motivated to work hard. i mean they have the most wealth so they must be working the hardest.

 
Two questions:

1. Should everyone have "skin in the game"? Certainly there are people in this country who need assistance. I would like to know how many people on welfare and food stamps have a smart phone. One that needs an extended plan to work. My opinion is that very few should just be "takers" from the system.

2. What is the most percentage wise that anyone should pay? Should the government be able to take 90%, 75%, 50% or not more than 33%. When is enough?

 
TonyStalloni said:
Two questions:

1. Should everyone have "skin in the game"? Certainly there are people in this country who need assistance. I would like to know how many people on welfare and food stamps have a smart phone. One that needs an extended plan to work. My opinion is that very few should just be "takers" from the system.

2. What is the most percentage wise that anyone should pay? Should the government be able to take 90%, 75%, 50% or not more than 33%. When is enough?
Click to expand...
1 - Keep in mind most people who receive assistance do work for a living, often full time. But we allow companies to pay sub-poverty wages. We protect the earnings and gains of the wealthy by stepping on the backs of the poor. Calling someone who is working just as ahrd as you are and getting less for it does not make them a 'taker'

2 - The Gov uses to take percentages like that, and you know what, the country was as a whole better off when it comes to the whole theory of working your way up, and upward mobility.

The author of that article has no sense of history. People came here for opportunity, absolutely, no question. By what always seems to be forgotten by these silver spoon guys when talking about 'bootstraps' is that up to about 1900, the Gov was giving away land. Lots of land. Settle the new world, get land. Go west, get free land. That sounds like a bunch of greedy 'takers' now doesn't it?

 
Strig- Getting land from the govt in that time period cannot be compared to the govt handouts of today. To make that land payoff a person had to do something with it. It was basically worthless without adding your own toil and sweat.

The thing that most caught my attention in this article was the statistic; 1.25 taxpayers paying for 1.0 persons on assistance or govt employees. That is simply not sustainable long term.

 
carlfense said:
Increase taxes and cut spending . . .

Sounds somewhat familiar.
Click to expand...
A-Christmas-Story-Gif-httpbabybluenightstumblrcom.gif


 
JJHusker1 said:
Strig- Getting land from the govt in that time period cannot be compared to the govt handouts of today. To make that land payoff a person had to do something with it. It was basically worthless without adding your own toil and sweat.

The thing that most caught my attention in this article was the statistic; 1.25 taxpayers paying for 1.0 persons on assistance or govt employees. That is simply not sustainable long term.
Click to expand...
No it's not.

 
JJHusker1 said:
Strig- Getting land from the govt in that time period cannot be compared to the govt handouts of today. To make that land payoff a person had to do something with it. It was basically worthless without adding your own toil and sweat.
Click to expand...
So is it a handout if the farmer takes federal crop insurance?

 
BigRedBuster said:
Junior said:
JJHusker1 said:
Strig- Getting land from the govt in that time period cannot be compared to the govt handouts of today. To make that land payoff a person had to do something with it. It was basically worthless without adding your own toil and sweat.
Click to expand...
So is it a handout if the farmer takes federal crop insurance?
Click to expand...
I pay premiums every year for federal crop insurance.
Click to expand...
So does my dad, but it is heavily subsidized. You pay about 40% of what the premiums would actually be, the government pays 60%.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Federal crop insurance is quite the handout, really. Not only does the government pay more than 1/2 of the annual premiums... they also reimburse the PRIVATE insurance companies for losses in bad years. So the government pays at both ends on that one. Not sure who worked out that plan, but sounds worse than Obamacare to me.

 
Back
Top