DNC Convention and "investment"

[Ronin13]

Roughly 12.5M unemployed, down from a high of

Welfare: 1.7% derive over 50% of their income from welfare, and about 8% (29.9 million) of the population receive some type of assistance (food stamps, etc.), if we count Temporary Aid to Needy Families. Demographically, the latter is broken down into about 39% white, 38% Black, 17% Hispanic.

Here's a article from WSJ that reports that almost half of the US population lived in a househould where at least one member received some benefit from the government.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/...ting-benefits/

Unfortunately, details on what counted as a benefit were lacking, so it's not a useful data point.

Actually your data is out of date-
As of 7/26/12 (most recent data available)
Total number of American’s on welfare 15,000,000 (4.1%)
Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment): $131.9 billion
Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare: $1000
Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job: 40
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job: 7
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher: 9
TIME ON WELFARE PERCENTAGES:
Less than 7 months: 19%
7 to 12 months: 15.2%
1 to 2 years: 19.3%
2 to 5 years: 26.9%
Over 5 years: 19.6%
14.5 percent of people share a home with a person on Medicare, and 16 percent lived with someone reliant on Social Security.
32.4 percent of the U.S. population receives support with food stamps, subsidized housing and healthcare support.
Applications for state benefits have increased 50 percent in the past decade.

Entitlements have to go... they're sucking us dry. It's the scary, dirty, and unfortunate truth, but that's the way it is...

[Rucker61]

Actually your data is out of date

Quite possibly, although I suspect we'd find different data from just about every source. It's the inherent inaccuracy of collecting this type of data.

What is the source of your data?

Entitlements have to go... they're sucking us dry. It's the scary, dirty, and unfortunate truth, but that's the way it is...

What's your answer to the problem? Just turn off the spigot? Given the numbers you listed, there are a lot of people that would be affected, including plenty of seniors and children.

[MrPrena]

QE3..... QE4.....QE5......QE6.....

^^^^ MS


We get screwed...

I've been watching the Socialist National Conv.....oh, I mean the Democrat National Convention for the last half hour or so. I've heard the words "invest" or "investment" about 20 times. I can't take any more of the sewage spewing forth from their mouths.

When will the lefties realize that an "investment" by the government is simply more government spending?

WE'RE OUT OF MONEY ASSHOLES No money to spend = broke. Continuous spending when broke = economic disaster. Economic disaster = mayhem and misery.

If I'm broke, or in debt up to my ass and beyond, and spending way more than I make, I can't "invest" in anything.

Ahhh, I just need a printing press. It all makes sense now.

[Ronin13]

Quite possibly, although I suspect we'd find different data from just about every source. It's the inherent inaccuracy of collecting this type of data.

What is the source of your data?



What's your answer to the problem? Just turn off the spigot? Given the numbers you listed, there are a lot of people that would be affected, including plenty of seniors and children.

Census data.
I'm not a policy maker, so I don't actually have a solution, but I can identify where the problem is. If you have a house on fire you have to put the fire out before you can even begin to think about rebuilding it.

[Ronin13]

AKA - the percentage of people on welfare is irrelevant. The percentage of people not paying taxes that would rather not have to work is highly relevant (even if they are working now). I'm sure some people here fall into that category. Work for $9 an hour or stay home and play WoW all day? Ya, you know who you are......

I would much rather sit at home and do nothing all day, but the reasonable, logical side of me says that I wouldn't have a home to sit at if I didn't work. Unemployment and welfare just wouldn't cut it, both financially or morally... I felt bad enough taking from unemployment when I did and when asked what I did for work during that time was about the most embarrassing position ever for me.

[Rucker61]

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/...-income-taxes/

It's pretty well known fact that close to half the country doesn't pay any taxes.

Doesn't pay any Federal Income Tax, to be correct. They still pay SS taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes and perhaps in some cases state income taxes.

Who are those people, anyway?

http://news.yahoo.com/numbers-47-per...170500327.html

It's a well known historical and sociological fact, that when close to half of a democratic or similar civilization is not contributing, they start voting themselves benefits from the treasury.

Fortunately for us, then, we're not there. It's a bit misleading to claim these people aren't contributing. Given that households in the lower income brackets tend to not save or invest, they contibute to the sales tax revenue disproportionately. They also tend to spend all of their income locally to support local businesses.

AKA - the percentage of people on welfare is irrelevant. The percentage of people not paying taxes that would rather not have to work is highly relevant (even if they are working now). I'm sure some people here fall into that category. Work for $9 an hour or stay home and play WoW all day? Ya, you know who you are......

Just how may people fall into this subcategory, and how many fall into others like: no jobs in their locale, single parent families who can't afford the childcare it would take for a $9 job to support that family, folks between jobs, folks with substandard educations who aren't qualified for local jobs, folks trained in fields that no longer exist (or are trending down)?

The reason people don't pay taxes is that they don't make enough money to, and you can work full time at a $9 an hour job and easily avoid having to pay taxes through legal deductions and the minimum taxable income. Check out www.irs.gov and see if you'd be willing to live at that income level to avoid taxes. Some people would, and do, but quite a few do and would prefer not to, but can't.

[Ronin13]

So Rucker, can I get this straight, you're all for the rich "paying their fair share?" Do you join the rest of the left in claiming we should eat the rich?

Let's take a look at America where the tax cap is at 55% (for many of the top of the food chain that's a 10% increase in taxes)... The top 5% of our nation who pays somewhere in the area of 65% of the taxes, decides that if they're going to get rich they'd have to give up more than half of their earned income to government. A government that doesn't handle their money wisely, no less. They decide that they don't like contributing more and more to a system that pretty much rewards laziness at the expense of their hard work. So they move. Then you see that 5% paying 65% of the taxes drops to 2%. That's a pretty huge burden for such a small number... it would be even more unsustainable than currently and we wouldn't pull in enough money to cover all those expenses. Remember, if we cut out the federal government, and military, we still wouldn't have enough for all these entitlements and pensions. And cutting out the government is impossible (I mean really, we do need the TSA and the DHS and the Department of Education! /sarcasm), cutting out the military is stupid (yes it could use some reform, and reduction in wasteful spending). So the bad news is, we have to say goodbye to the welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security and other social programs as we know them, and dramatically reform them... to the point where yes, a lot of liberals will get pissed, a lot of leeches will be butthurt.

I'll have you know right now, that with the way our tax code is, a lot of my friends who make a very decent amount of money refuse to let their wives work because their tax bracket is so high already. So yes, let's eat the rich, let's pick their bones dry so they can pay for everyone else! That's stupid. How about instead of bitching about why these people don't make enough to pay taxes, we make it so we improve the system so they can make enough to pay taxes, instead of taxing those who already pay more than their fair share. How about instead of complaining that they're too rich, we look at the fact that they pay the most in, and take the most out.

[Rucker61]

So Rucker, can I get this straight, you're all for the rich "paying their fair share?" Do you join the rest of the left in claiming we should eat the rich?

So, Ronin, did I mention the rich anywhere here? I was pointing out that one reason that the poor pay less or no taxes is because they're poor.

Let's take a look at America where the tax cap is at 55% (for many of the top of the food chain that's a 10% increase in taxes)...

The IRS standard rates top out at 35%, and AMT tops out at 28%.

The top 5% of our nation who pays somewhere in the area of 65% of the taxes,

They do make a lot of money, and to pay 65% of the taxes, they have to make a lot of money. And since both the standard tax rate and the AMT treat capitial gains at 15%, they make a whole lot of money. That's just math.

decides that if they're going to get rich they'd have to give up more than half of their earned income to government.

Less than half, which still leaves them a lot. A whole lot.

A government that doesn't handle their money wisely, no less.

Granted, not all the time, but there's a good bit of good activity, too. YMMV.

They decide that they don't like contributing more and more to a system that pretty much rewards laziness at the expense of their hard work.
So they move. Then you see that 5% paying 65% of the taxes drops to 2%. That's a pretty huge burden for such a small number.

I'm guessing there's no real data behind your decrease in the rich remaining in the tax base, and you presume that merely moving will remove the tax liability (hint: you can't move property). Lastly, the system doesn't reward laziness, but it does enable it in some circumstances. Is there anyone here who wouldn't work harder to be in a higher tax bracket? I know I would, if the opportunity was there.

.. it would be even more unsustainable than currently and we wouldn't pull in enough money to cover all those expenses. Remember, if we cut out the federal government, and military, we still wouldn't have enough for all these entitlements and pensions. And cutting out the government is impossible (I mean really, we do need the TSA and the DHS and the Department of Education! /sarcasm), cutting out the military is stupid (yes it could use some reform, and reduction in wasteful spending). So the bad news is, we have to say goodbye to the welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security and other social programs as we know them, and dramatically reform them... to the point where yes, a lot of liberals/moderates/conservatives will get pissed, a lot of leeches/truly deserving will be butthurt.

Cuts need to be made in all areas, but no one wants their rice bowl touched. I do feel that there is waste in every level and sector of government, just as you do. I think we'd have different some ideas on what to cut, and how much. We'd want to take a long look at long term consequenes, but the US has never been very good at that. Next quarter, or next election, that's about as far as the decision makers can focus.

I'll have you know right now, that with the way our tax code is, a lot of my friends who make a very decent amount of money refuse to let their wives work because their tax bracket is so high already.

Absent the idea of men refusing to let their wives work, let's take a look at this claim. Unless your friends are right on the edge of a tax bracket, and the incremental income the wives would bring to the household is tiny, the numbers just don't work out. Here are the current tax brackets:




Can you pick out some numbers in the 25% or higher brackets where a wife making up to say 50% of the husbands salary doesn't pay off?

So yes, let's eat the rich, let's pick their bones dry so they can pay for everyone else! That's stupid. How about instead of bitching about why these people don't make enough to pay taxes, we make it so we improve the system so they can make enough to pay taxes,

Okay, I'm bitching. I presume you're talking about more jobs, not increasing the minimum wage. What kind of jobs? Traditionally, manufacturing jobs have been the blue collar job of choice. How do we compete with overseas manufacturing costs? How do we convince American companies to create more jobs here instead of in Asia? I'm sure that corporate tax rates are a topic that will be considered, but how low would they have to go to impact job creation? Note that many small businesses are sole-proprietorships whose owners pay personal, not corporate income taxes, and that comparisons of nominal and effective corporate tax rates around the world don't include VAT, which is another tax paid in many of the western countries.

[instead of taxing those who already pay more than their fair share. How about instead of complaining that they're too rich, we look at the fact that they pay the most in, and take the most out.

I hardly think that 15% is more than anyone's fair share. You do realize that much of the income of the very rich falls into capital gains and not ordinary income, right? If I can pay 28%, why can't they?

[Rucker61]

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to object as to hearsay. Your opinion holds no factual weight. Last I checked, most people are spending shit purchasing shit from walmart whose corporate center is not local, and whose product is foreign.
Yea. Great economy booster. Just like all those stiumulus "I'll give you free money to buy a Chinese TV" programs. Do you believe your own bullshit?

Thank you for your courteous reply. Since you're so data driven, please provide a cite that shows that over 50% of the income of any particular income bracket is spent at Wal-Mart. You seem to be neglecting rent, utilities, transportation and other expenses that are typically paid locally. Even Walmart spending generates sales tax revenue, and the money paid to Walmart pays the wages of their employees, whom I surmise, live locally and also spend locally.

Again, going to object as to hearsay. You seem to be potentially intelligent, but unfortunately your logic complex seems to be shorting out in your cerebrum, and I'm going to object to your argument on relevance.

Tax brackets have little to do with who does, and who does not pay taxes. The fact of the matter is, virtually half of people do not pay taxes (remember, EIC credits, credits for having six anchor babies, etc. etc.).

Tax brackets have all of the significance in who pays taxes. You'll note that your "taxable income", which takes into account all of your credits above, and more, determines which bracket/rate you fall into.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

Many of these people are "middle class".The accounting industry is entirely built around dodging taxes. Please provide your degree in accounting before spewing groundless opinion based rhetoric at fast. Otherwise, your opinions are wholly unqualified and are stricken.

I do have a double emphasis in Accounting and Operations Management MBA, and have the necessary education to be a CPA in Washington State, where I attended graduate school. Stop by for a beer and I'll show you the diploma and leftover textbooks. The tax accounting industry is built around avoiding taxes, which is perfectly legitimate. That's one reason many of us own a home instead of renting, to take advantage of the mortgage tax avoidance rules.

The point is - do you honestly think the vast majority of people, if given the option of early retirement or the option of paying 45-55% in taxes (scaling even more with more income) are going to chose the "slave" option? Your argument is... tax brackets.

Are you saying that you wouldn't want to be in the next higher tax bracket, even if your income tax rate was higher? If so, I think you and I use different math.

Anyone that makes enough money to be affected by the very highest of tax brackets can't really be considered a slave, as that's a taxable income of around $383k. I don't know any of those people, and what motivates them. I do know that HP's previous CEO Mark Hurd received enough money in his tenure for any, heck, quite a few, of us to retire and live quite well. He still goes to work every day.

Right. Those people are TOTALLY wanting to slave away for $9 an hour and if given the option, most WOULDNT take a government check for $10 an hour tax free instead. Makes total sense.

I agree, it makes no sense to work in those circumstances. Yet people still do. I wonder why? Given these circumstances, how do we provide a way to make a living for these folks?

[Irving]

I hardly think that 15% is more than anyone's fair share. You do realize that much of the income of the very rich falls into capital gains and not ordinary income, right? If I can pay 28%, why can't they?

A much better question is: If they can use their OWN money, to make money, and only be taxed at 15%, why can't you?

I asked myself that very question, and it has set me on a quest. Being poor sucks, so don't do it.