Interesting response on U Tube debate

[justin]

1. Yeah definitely not the democratic position to get rid of NAFTA considering half the candidates are owned by Wallstreet.
2. Bill Clinton huge (censored) was a supporter of NAFTA he's no better then conservatives. Economically speaking he sold out his poltiical base and people are to stupid to realize it
3. Obviously noone raised taxes on the poor but when you give tax cuts to the rich so that you can claim all the social programs in this country are failing when in reality they are underfunded well that kinda acts as a "tax".

[ATrebek]

[ QUOTE ]
guess I'm just ignorant but the last tax breaks where a standardized amount for everyone??

[/ QUOTE ]

Standard dollar amount for everyone but a much, much, much larger percentage for the poor. What is $300 to a millionaire anyway?

[ QUOTE ]
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.

But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a
bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, Congressman and Senators, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.{/quote]

[jasonfish11]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Obviously noone raised taxes on the poor but when you give tax cuts to the rich so that you can claim all the social programs in this country are failing when in reality they are underfunded well that kinda acts as a "tax".

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious on how everyone would go about giving a tax break to the "poor"? Most people that we would think of as "poor" dont pay taxes they get money back. I should know I do about 40 returns a year for them. Back to my question how do you cut taxes for someone who doesnt pay them?

[Teemoney]

Remind me to never go to you for tax advice.

The 'poor' don't get money back. They overpaid into the system and the money is refunded to them because it is THEIR money. The poor pay taxes. The money is NOT a windfall. You don't think Social Security is a tax? Medicare?

Tax codes are changed so that the % of your income that is taxed changes. Most payroll divisions know enough to adjust your income to reflect changes, some don't, hence why you get refunds (and deductions that payroll wouldn't know about). There was a big stink a few years ago because the government wanted companies to estimate taxes more closely so that there wouldn't be so many refunds/taxes due on people.

If you want to know the difference between Republicans and Democrats (traditional policy) on taxes here it is...

Republicans and Democrats spend as much as they want. The difference is that Republicans will take the money from social programs to cover their expanses and try to toe the line with new taxes. Democrates raise taxes to cover their expanses to leave the social programs alone. Democrates tend to want to tax big business and the rich. Republicans also have the tendency to 'borrow' money to pay for their programs.

[jasonfish11]

Ok ill agree that if you sum up ALL of the taxes that they pay they dont get money back. But I was just talking about income tax. Many people that have a 0 tax liability and still add credits on to that like EITC ect. If you include sales taxes, sin taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, ss, Medicare, ect. ect... they wind up paying the govt. But when most people talk about taxes they are talking about income taxes. And no matter what you believe due to the many credits out there many "poor" people get more back than was taken out of their paychecks (not including ss and Medicare taken out)

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
The 'poor' don't get money back. They overpaid into the system and the money is refunded to them because it is THEIR money. The poor pay taxes. The money is NOT a windfall. You don't think Social Security is a tax? Medicare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the 'poor' get back far in excess of taxes paid in from paycheck with holding.

Even the 'poor' who have no children and can use a standard deduction for a 100% refund can get extra money as well above and beyond what they had with held.

Is SS a tax, no, they will get that as well and guess what, if it is below a certain level, they get a Supplemental Social Security check to make up the difference.

obg

[Skallagrim]

Some thoughts before this gets moved to the politics forum:

A pure capitalist/republican might be quite happy with a total free-market system that maximizes success in a competitive market by allowing and protecting for huge rewards at the top. This system is the best for growth, invention, and productivity. At times, however, the system will get way out of whack and the "losers" at the bottom (a sizable majority) may take steps very unpleasant for those formerly on top. Remember the French revolution?

A real socialist/democrat is quite happy with a system where everything is centrally controlled to produce the greatest common good for all. Such a system really does a good job of ensuring equality of services when dividing up the economic pie. However, the lack of incentive to do better, and the inherent stifling of creativity usually leads to negative growth which then slowly reduces the gains of the majority "losers." Think every communist country.

Of course the secret of true success is finding the right balance between distributing for the common good and reward for individual merit.

Sometimes republicans push things to far one way, then later the democrats will push things to far the other way.

Right now I think things are a little too skewed towards benefiting the wealthy, primarily because of all the corporate welfare and the failure to address in some way the overpriced health care system (which really should be a "right" of some kind in an advanced nation).

But even assuming I vote based on the above philosophy, its also true that both political parties are so beholden to their sources of big money that any real change either way is very unlikely.

So I will vote for anyone who A) has a viable plan to end the Iraq fiasco and B) will not veto online poker legalization. If a candidate meets those 2 criteria, I'd forgive just about anything else.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
Some thoughts before this gets moved to the politics forum:

A pure capitalist/republican might be quite happy with a total free-market system that maximizes success in a competitive market by allowing and protecting for huge rewards at the top. This system is the best for growth, invention, and productivity. At times, however, the system will get way out of whack and the "losers" at the bottom (a sizable majority) may take steps very unpleasant for those formerly on top. Remember the French revolution?

A real socialist/democrat is quite happy with a system where everything is centrally controlled to produce the greatest common good for all. Such a system really does a good job of ensuring equality of services when dividing up the economic pie. However, the lack of incentive to do better, and the inherent stifling of creativity usually leads to negative growth which then slowly reduces the gains of the majority "losers." Think every communist country.

Of course the secret of true success is finding the right balance between distributing for the common good and reward for individual merit.

Sometimes republicans push things to far one way, then later the democrats will push things to far the other way.

Right now I think things are a little too skewed towards benefiting the wealthy, primarily because of all the corporate welfare and the failure to address in some way the overpriced health care system (which really should be a "right" of some kind in an advanced nation).

But even assuming I vote based on the above philosophy, its also true that both political parties are so beholden to their sources of big money that any real change either way is very unlikely.

So I will vote for anyone who A) has a viable plan to end the Iraq fiasco and B) will not veto online poker legalization. If a candidate meets those 2 criteria, I'd forgive just about anything else.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that nothing will change until a crises occurs. However, I think that US is tilted too much toward the socialism/communist end. Ironically, this causes wealth to tilt to the few rich who can take advantage or protect themselves from big government regulation and taxation. Truth is that going to either extreme causes a few winners and lots of losers. Maybe the socialism/communist end produces fewer destitute poor, but at the cost of lots of lower middle class and less middle to upper-middle class than the independent capitalist end.
Pure capitalism worked so long as the US had a frontier for the destitute poor to start over or make a living farming. By the 1920's, the frontier was all settled and that was a big cause of the Great Depression which lead to the start of the tilt to bigger government socialism.
I think that early 1970's before Carter was the best balance. Since the Republicans have shown that they will not cause a correction to capitalist end, I decline to vote.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious on how everyone would go about giving a tax break to the "poor"? Most people that we would think of as "poor" dont pay taxes they get money back. I should know I do about 40 returns a year for them. Back to my question how do you cut taxes for someone who doesnt pay them?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can have negative Income Tax. If you are in low paid work but with kids etc you can have a minimum income system where you get money back from government that is greater than your income tax. It is a way to make sure that work pays better than out of work benefits. In the UK it is primarily used to combat child poverty.

[disjunction]

I like poker. I hope it stays legal.