Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Wealth Inequality in America


  • Please log in to reply
270 replies to this topic

#181 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,359 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:18 AM

Now this is a decent Tinderbox discussion.

Good job Panthro and Madhatter,

#182 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,956 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:10 AM

assholes

:)

#183 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:49 AM

I would definitely rather see a program that helps the people that are working hard (as you have articulated) than the welfare program that we have now (too easy to game the system and be totally supported without working for the rest if your life).

I believe in helping those that are working hard to help themselves. Not much sympathy for the person willing to sit on their ass and get a gov't check.

But to accomplish that type of program would take a major overhaul of the existing entitlement programs.


You say you support the working poor and would prefer a situation where no government assistance is needed for those people. Yet you also complain about these people paying no federal income tax (50%!!!) and complain whenever someone tries to raise the minimum wage.

From an individual perspective education and job training is a good idea, but the fact still remains that these are jobs that need to be filled, and unless you do things like raise the minimum wage or provide free healthcare, there will be people working shitty jobs that barely make enough to live paycheck to paycheck

#184 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,359 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:23 PM

You say you support the working poor and would prefer a situation where no government assistance is needed for those people. Yet you also complain about these people paying no federal income tax (50%!!!) and complain whenever someone tries to raise the minimum wage.

From an individual perspective education and job training is a good idea, but the fact still remains that these are jobs that need to be filled, and unless you do things like raise the minimum wage or provide free healthcare, there will be people working shitty jobs that barely make enough to live paycheck to paycheck



It has been that way, and will continue forever.

There are always "haves and have nots" it's just the way it is.

Many governments have tried for it to not be that way, but it's impossible to sustain for a long period.

America allows us many opportunities to rise from poverty, but not everyone is going to do it.

#185 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,960 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:17 PM

You say you support the working poor and would prefer a situation where no government assistance is needed for those people. Yet you also complain about these people paying no federal income tax (50%!!!) and complain whenever someone tries to raise the minimum wage.

From an individual perspective education and job training is a good idea, but the fact still remains that these are jobs that need to be filled, and unless you do things like raise the minimum wage or provide free healthcare, there will be people working shitty jobs that barely make enough to live paycheck to paycheck


I have never complained about raising the minimum wage. I only stated that it will have consequences on the work force if it is raised too high. Companies will start eliminating jobs....it is not as easy a solution as you think.

I DO have a problem with people paying ZERO income tax. I think that everyone should have some skin in the game. Those with lower incomes should pay at least a small amount.

I have no issues with assisting people who are working hard to make ends meet. My beef is with the current system that will provide benefit after benefit to people who sit at home and don't work. Again....I blame the current system, not necessarily the people benefiting from it.

I do NOT think that the social programs that we have need to be eliminated. But, I DO think they need major overhauls. Someone should NOT be able to use the gov't (other people's tax dollars) as a means of their support without being required to work.

Hell....have them pick up trash on the side of the road....volunteer and work at the library....anything.

#186 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:36 PM

I have never complained about raising the minimum wage. I only stated that it will have consequences on the work force if it is raised too high. Companies will start eliminating jobs....it is not as easy a solution as you think.

I DO have a problem with people paying ZERO income tax. I think that everyone should have some skin in the game. Those with lower incomes should pay at least a small amount.


So you want people to pay a small federal income tax, then turn around and give that money back with food stamps? Nothing wrong with that I guess but it seems inefficient

#187 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,359 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:43 PM

So you want people to pay a small federal income tax, then turn around and give that money back with food stamps? Nothing wrong with that I guess but it seems inefficient



People that pay no taxes will always vote for tax increases on the rest, everyone needs to feel that sting, and not just inadvertently.

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

#188 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 06:06 PM

People that pay no taxes will always vote for tax increases on the rest, everyone needs to feel that sting, and not just inadvertently.

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.


Still paying taxes, just not federal income tax

#189 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,178 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 02:03 AM

Are u really this dumb?

Jokes aren't funny when they must be explained...


idk, "ncbiscuit got his master's" is a p funny joke

#190 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,178 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 02:11 AM

I believe in helping those that are working hard to help themselves. Not much sympathy for the person willing to sit on their ass and get a gov't check.


then logically you should support government intervention in order to create full employment; think of it as a universal right to employment. unemployment doesn't exist because everyone that's unemployed refuses to work.

so which would you prefer? higher taxes on the rich to fund government work programs, or, disregarding the constitutionality of the proposal, a legal mandate that the private sector provide real work opportunities to those in search of work? or some other idea? (note: trickle down economics is a fairytale and is not a viable solution)

#191 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,960 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 19 March 2013 - 06:31 AM

then logically you should support government intervention in order to create full employment; think of it as a universal right to employment. unemployment doesn't exist because everyone that's unemployed refuses to work.

so which would you prefer? higher taxes on the rich to fund government work programs, or, disregarding the constitutionality of the proposal, a legal mandate that the private sector provide real work opportunities to those in search of work? or some other idea? (note: trickle down economics is a fairytale and is not a viable solution)


Your solution is still one that says lower income people cannot improve their position and should not worry about it...because someone else will take care of them.

That logic us massively flawed.

On paper, communism is the best form if gov't. Yet, it does not work because it plays on prople's natural laziness. If you get what you need, no matter yor input the following happens:

Those that take more than they contribute are never invented to work harder.

Those that contribute more than they take realize they don't have to work as hard to get the same.

Therefore, the entire structure begins to collapse.

History has proven this correct over and over.

#192 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,344 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:37 AM

idk, "ncbiscuit got his master's" is a p funny joke


Cantrell with real world experience is even funnier...


then logically you should support government intervention in order to create full employment; think of it as a universal right to employment. unemployment doesn't exist because everyone that's unemployed refuses to work.

so which would you prefer? higher taxes on the rich to fund government work programs, or, disregarding the constitutionality of the proposal, a legal mandate that the private sector provide real work opportunities to those in search of work? or some other idea? (note: trickle down economics is a fairytale and is not a viable solution)


You're assuming that everyone will work hard if given the chance. That's the problem, as hatter said, with these programs... a lot of ( but not all) people, once they're on them don't give a crap anymore... they're taken care of so why try anymore? Take the handout, be lazy and do whatever you want.

#193 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:43 AM

This bears repeating "you cannot legislate prosperity"

#194 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:10 AM

then logically you should support government intervention in order to create full employment; think of it as a universal right to employment. unemployment doesn't exist because everyone that's unemployed refuses to work.

so which would you prefer? higher taxes on the rich to fund government work programs, or, disregarding the constitutionality of the proposal, a legal mandate that the private sector provide real work opportunities to those in search of work? or some other idea? (note: trickle down economics is a fairytale and is not a viable solution)


Not that I particularly like Cantrel's idea here, but nobody actually responded to it. You just went back to the 'people are lazy, you cant give them handouts' line even though that has nothing to do with this post

#195 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,178 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:27 PM

Not that I particularly like Cantrel's idea here, but nobody actually responded to it. You just went back to the 'people are lazy, you cant give them handouts' line even though that has nothing to do with this post


this is why i usually don't treat posters like hatter or ncbiscuit with respect; neither argue in good faith

there is such inconsistency among the conservatives here. unemployment is high because obummer isn't doing anything, but government can't create jobs. there's no universal right to employment, but if you're unemployed you're a parasite.

capitalism essentially requires unemployment (outside of the fantasy world where perfectly competitive markets exist) and in fact the ruling class prefers artificially high levels of unemployment; they use this to depress wages and create an environment in which employees can't just tell their shitty boss "go fug yourself"


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com