LOLelections

[Vistani]

Presumably the wealthy child doesn't need a champion for their cause because they're not stupid or lazy like the poor child, who should really just be killed.

[Maxxthepenguin]

ohoho, no dear beckwin, that is not the issue. The issue is that you harbor contempt for the wealthy.

You view a poor person born into his situation far differently than a rich person born into his. I find that hypocritical.

Money gives you power and, from a strict rich compared to poor perspective, a stronger voice.

[Beckwin]

you're reaching. it's not like I think poor people should never do anything, never work, and live off the government's teat. wealth by nature is oppressive to those below it, but wealthy people aren't necessarily oppressive. wealth begets certain freedoms and privileges that poverty doesn't have, thus you compensate in terms of monetary contribution to government/society to at least ensure a decent standard of living for all.

[BIGSTIC]

no, because the rich person enjoys their privilege only because there are poor people below him. That truth, along with the really really basic idea of the Golden Rule, motivates my leftist politics. Society is about compromise, and I don't think that it's asking too much for the wealthy person to pay proportionally more taxes so that those allowing for their wealth to exist can live decent lives and certainly not rot away in the streets.

So lets see I make roughly 50k/year atm. Wouldnt say I am poor but definetly am not wealthy. However atm I am putting my max ammount of contributions into a retirment plan. Been doing it since I was 22. On the low side I should have well over 2mill sitting waiting for me for retirement. So with 2mill I figure I am kinda wealthy and it is because of my sacrifices right now that I will be wealthy then.

So you want me to pay more taxes after i retire because I PLANNED for the future and saved my money? You want me to support the freeloader with my wealth when it was MY sacrifice now that created that wealth? I hope to give the majority of my wealth to my children so they can continue to build that wealth for future generations but I feel that the "left" believes I should give this wealth to a poor person and tell my kids to just work harder. Some days I think I would just be better off moving back to a reservation and collect a check every month for doing nothing.

Now dont get me wrong. Last year I wired 4 houses for free for Habitat for Humanity(that alone figures out to $12k). My family is involved with the local food bank and meals on wheels. My wife and I like to think that we try to look for those in need and try to find ways to meet those needs. But paying more taxes so that a guy I will never meet makes me cringe.

Although the last house I wired for Habitat makes me really wonder if trying to help is really worth it. 6 months after it was completed the owner was arrested for a meth lab in the basement. I mean you try to help and people just abuse the charity.

[Nystul]

You must agree that there are essentially three types of wealthy people:

Those who attain it through honorable hard work.
Those who attain it through dishonorable work.
Those who attain it through birth.

Now...only 1/3 of these people did anything wrong. Should we not reward people for excellence? If not, what drive does anyone have to ever improve themselves or their surroundings? And if you can not place blame on poor people for simply being poor, you can't look down your nose at someone being born into wealth, because it amounts to sour grapes and that just makes you a petty douche.

So really you're left with only one group that you can despise, and it's those that got there through immoral means.

THis has nothing to do with who should pay how much of what taxes. I'm addressing your feelings towards poor people and rich people.

You paint the poor exclusively as victims and the rich as the villains. What I'm hoping to get at eventually is that if you understand that not all rich people are horrible fucking monsters then you MUST admit, logically, that not all poor people are victims- that a population of poor people are most certainly there by bad choices, lazyness and such. Certainly not all, but they are there.

If you can't admit that, and you can't account for that in a solution for how to improve the world, then that solution is complete shit.

[Beckwin]

First- write off your charitable donations. if you're a contractor or electrician I'm sure you can write off the 12k wiring jobs (I think it works like, your tax rate times the donation = what you don't have to pay in taxes).

2million isn't a ton of money if you spread it over 20+ years (not sure how early you plan on retiring or how long you plan on living). Also, would that money just be taxable as capital gains? I'm not a tax expert by any means, but I don't think you can really be taxed on money twice (except for the basic state/fed) so wouldn't it just be the interest you've accrued that's taxable? Either way, consider that you'll be collecting social security (no, it won't disappear) and that you'll continue to benefit from government services.

In terms of children- hey, where's the bootstraps when it's your own kids? minor kidding aside, at the very least you'll know that your children should never go hungry and will have education (and soon hopefully healthcare) no matter what happens. if you die early, lose all your money somehow, or whatever, there's gonna be something to catch them if they fall. And again, you're using the pot-shot "poor people are all lazy" argument which has been beaten to hell in this thread. The rez is a special case, but I grew up near it too and yeah, you see some frankly shameful stuff, but I also get to see first-generation college students from Navajo families in my classes at my university, some of which may never have gotten off the rez without their families getting help at some point.

[Beckwin]

Should we not reward people for excellence?

We should and do. It's called being fucking rich.

Are you getting it yet?

[Ardrial]

ohoho, no dear beckwin, that is not the issue. The issue is that you harbor contempt for the wealthy.

You view a poor person born into his situation far differently than a rich person born into his. I find that hypocritical.

I don't usually post much but I was rather poor living with my parents.

I'm still poor (pulling out student loans like crazy to finish school and working) but I'm making it.

I watched my parents their entire life work their asses off so they could barely make the bills that month and give us food. (They'd work 3-4 jobs between them at times.)

The reason we have this contempt for the wealthy is because we see how hard people have to work to get their money to barely survive and then we see the people who didn't do jack shit with their life and just get money thrown at them. It just is aggravating when you grow up in that type of environment.

It's not all the wealthy that we hate, it's just the ones who don't deserve it... *cough*ParisHilton*cough*

ninja edit something in

[Beckwin]

What I'm hoping to get at eventually is that if you understand that not all rich people are horrible fucking monsters then you MUST admit, logically, that not all poor people are victims- that a population of poor people are most certainly there by bad choices, lazyness and such. Certainly not all, but they are there.

And excuse me, but where the fuck did I deny that? Recall that this whole derail started with someone popping off about all poor people are lazy trash that deserve to die. Pardon for not giving the fucker an inch by explicitly saying "yeah, some people do nothing more than leech, but it's realistically very few", nor did I find any reason to speak the praises of compassionate or even simply fair-playing wealthy people in that context. Not to mention that for the most part what I've been talking about has been based on wealth and poverty (not so much wealthy and impoverished) and basic equal footing/base standard of life in a society for all.

"A-ha! I'll show that Beckwin! He must admit something he never denied!"

ok.

[BIGSTIC]

I donate my time and ask for the material donations from local suppliers. I dont take the tax deductions because it is all side job work on my off time and well I really dont feal the need to use what I consider dumb deductions. I pay my taxes so i have the right to complain about were my taxes go. I honestly hate deductions and frankly in my short 15 years of paying taxes have never claimed anything other than the standard deduction. Well except for this year I got to claim my son Hell I even own a house but dont have a mortgage so cant even claim that.

As for my retirement I wouldnt be surprised to see in the next 26 years to see the tax laws change and they will decide they want to tax my IRA. They will need the tax to pay for SS when I retire

And yes I dont mind the medicare/medicaid(Sry dont support Free for All government healthcare), low income housing, and all the other social programs like CHIP(in MT) that provides free health care forchildren in low income families. But I still see a major problem when there are no limitations as to the time the under privliged are allowed to stay on these programs. I firmly belive we need to set limitations or we do just promote lazyness. I live close to the Crow Nation and you see it constantly here. The natives can make more $$ sitting on the res vs. getting up and getting a job. My wife is actually Lakota Sioux but has never lived a day on the res. She loves her history but is sadened by the state of the reservations.

[Beckwin]

I'm not gonna sit here and say that all forms of welfare are perfect as is, but I also have to argue against the whole "omg stealing my money; they're all lazy bastards" etc stuff. I mean you just listed several programs that you see as doing some good and helping people who need it, so you can't say it's all bad.

Although interestingly you are against healthcare even though it's the least sustainability-leeching thing I can think of- you only use the money/service when you're ill. It's not like "yay I can see a doctor for free now, time to quit my job and sit around doing nothing all day."

And again, the native american/rez thing is sort of a whole other can of worms. there's a lot more than simple taxes->social program going on there. it probably needs fixing, but it also probably isn't as simple as "hey you guys get some jobs, we're not gonna give you as much anymore"

PS- I can't help but laugh a little bit at you complaining about taxes and tax deductions at the same time XD If you're really concerned about taxes taking away from your child's future then for chrissakes, take advantage of honest-to-goodness charitable deductions and put that money away for him. No shame in that whatsoever.

[Vistani]

I'm not gonna sit here and say that all forms of welfare are perfect as is, but I also have to argue against the whole "omg stealing my money; they're all lazy bastards" etc stuff. I mean you just listed several programs that you see as doing some good and helping people who need it, so you can't say it's all bad.

Although interestingly you are against healthcare even though it's the least sustainability-leeching thing I can think of- you only use the money/service when you're ill. It's not like "yay I can see a doctor for free now, time to quit my job and sit around doing nothing all day."

And again, the native american/rez thing is sort of a whole other can of worms. there's a lot more than simple taxes->social program going on there. it probably needs fixing, but it also probably isn't as simple as "hey you guys get some jobs, we're not gonna give you as much anymore"

If they weren't so dirty and poor the problem would be fixed. The solution is clearly to just kill them.

[Maxxthepenguin]

But I still see a major problem when there are no limitations as to the time the under privliged are allowed to stay on these programs. I firmly belive we need to set limitations or we do just promote lazyness. I live close to the Crow Nation and you see it constantly here. The natives can make more $$ sitting on the res vs. getting up and getting a job. My wife is actually Lakota Sioux but has never lived a day on the res. She loves her history but is sadened by the state of the reservations.

I absolutely agree with this stuff, but it's complex. How can we keep it fair and keep people afloat without making them utterly reliant on that money? How much is enough without being so much that it becomes a legitimate amount of money? Should we control what welfare checks should be spent on? How? What freedoms should people lose on welfare? How much money are we willing to spend on a bureaucracy to enforce such things? What exceptions should we make for people suffering from serious physical and mental conditions (including PTSD for soldiers)?




Somewhat seperate issue: What good does 50k do for somebody with 5mil? What good does 50k do for somebody barely making ends meet?

PS- I can't help but laugh a little bit at you complaining about taxes and tax deductions at the same time XD If you're really concerned about taxes taking away from your child's future then for chrissakes, take advantage of honest-to-goodness charitable deductions and put that money away for him. No shame in that whatsoever.

He understands the need for taxes and wants to support his government but doesn't want his money to be abused. A viewpoint that is difficult to follow through with but is overall fair.

[BIGSTIC]

Ok how about we do this. Was suggested to me buy my father in law( a dirt poor dirt farmer in ND)

So CEO of company makes $1mill a year. You dont need $1mill a year to live(honestly). So you take CEO and give him 9 helpers. Everyone including CEO gets 100k a year and we are all happy. Not only did we get rid of un-employment but we also all share the wealth.

If only it were that simple.

PS- I can't help but laugh a little bit at you complaining about taxes and tax deductions at the same time XD If you're really concerned about taxes taking away from your child's future then for chrissakes, take advantage of honest-to-goodness charitable deductions and put that money away for him. No shame in that whatsoever.

Guess its my whole trying to lead by example and the fact that I dont really NEED the deductions. I live just fine on my income and have everything I need to make me happy. The paperwork and red tape involved just so I can get a couple hundred dollars back for something i was volunteering for seems absurd to me. I mean it just seems ass backwards to me to help but then ask for something in return. I truly believe their are still people out there that just honestly want to help and well I really do enjoy helping others. The handshake from a deserving individule that you helped is worth much more than that tax deduction and if more people would realize this the conversation we are having would be mute.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Ok how about we do this. Was suggested to me buy my father in law( a dirt poor dirt farmer in ND)

So CEO of company makes $1mill a year. You dont need $1mill a year to live(honestly). So you take CEO and give him 9 helpers. Everyone including CEO gets 100k a year and we are all happy. Not only did we get rid of un-employment but we also all share the wealth.

If only it were that simple.

DAMN YOU HUMAN NATURE

[Nystul]

What I'm hoping to get at eventually is that if you understand that not all rich people are horrible fucking monsters then you MUST admit, logically, that not all poor people are victims- that a population of poor people are most certainly there by bad choices, lazyness and such. Certainly not all, but they are there.

And excuse me, but where the fuck did I deny that? Recall that this whole derail started with someone popping off about all poor people are lazy trash that deserve to die. Pardon for not giving the fucker an inch by explicitly saying "yeah, some people do nothing more than leech, but it's realistically very few", nor did I find any reason to speak the praises of compassionate or even simply fair-playing wealthy people in that context. Not to mention that for the most part what I've been talking about has been based on wealth and poverty (not so much wealthy and impoverished) and basic equal footing/base standard of life in a society for all.

"A-ha! I'll show that Beckwin! He must admit something he never denied!"

ok.

No, Beckwin...this is precisely the problem. You love going at it about this stuff but you're playing the game. You basically just say here: "I'm going to avoid discussing the reality of the situation because I don't want to give any credence to his argument." Fact is, on a level he was right. Some poor people are just lazy shitbags who deserve what they are. But when you come out and are absolutist in your response to HIS absolutism...you are doing the same thing you're calling him wrong for doing. Then you sit there and throw around your absolutes and you start to believe yourself and before you know it you or he or whatever is harboring contempt for whatever group you're not defending and...

point is beckwin you're talking to some guy and telling him that he's a dirtbag and to fuck off but he's doing the same thing you are. But you know, if you guys didn't do that, this thread would have been about 1 page of "this is bad" "I agree" "here's some mutually amicable solutions that address both our concerns" "looks good! Mail them to congress!"

Ok how about we do this. Was suggested to me buy my father in law( a dirt poor dirt farmer in ND)

So CEO of company makes $1mill a year. You dont need $1mill a year to live(honestly). So you take CEO and give him 9 helpers. Everyone including CEO gets 100k a year and we are all happy. Not only did we get rid of un-employment but we also all share the wealth.

If only it were that simple.

Think about what you would do if you were the exec.

[Beckwin]

What I'm hoping to get at eventually is that if you understand that not all rich people are horrible fucking monsters then you MUST admit, logically, that not all poor people are victims- that a population of poor people are most certainly there by bad choices, lazyness and such. Certainly not all, but they are there.

And excuse me, but where the fuck did I deny that? Recall that this whole derail started with someone popping off about all poor people are lazy trash that deserve to die. Pardon for not giving the fucker an inch by explicitly saying "yeah, some people do nothing more than leech, but it's realistically very few", nor did I find any reason to speak the praises of compassionate or even simply fair-playing wealthy people in that context. Not to mention that for the most part what I've been talking about has been based on wealth and poverty (not so much wealthy and impoverished) and basic equal footing/base standard of life in a society for all.

"A-ha! I'll show that Beckwin! He must admit something he never denied!"

ok.

No, Beckwin...this is precisely the problem. You love going at it about this stuff but you're playing the game. You basically just say here: "I'm going to avoid discussing the reality of the situation because I don't want to give any credence to his argument." Fact is, on a level he was right. Some poor people are just lazy shitbags who deserve what they are. But when you come out and are absolutist in your response to HIS absolutism...you are doing the same thing you're calling him wrong for doing. Then you sit there and throw around your absolutes and you start to believe yourself and before you know it you or he or whatever is harboring contempt for whatever group you're not defending and...

point is beckwin you're talking to some guy and telling him that he's a dirtbag and to fuck off but he's doing the same thing you are. But you know, if you guys didn't do that, this thread would have been about 1 page of "this is bad" "I agree" "here's some mutually amicable solutions that address both our concerns" "looks good! Mail them to congress!"

Yeah, except I never said kill the rich and take over their businesses in the form of a soviet because they're all shitty asshole oppressors and deserve to die. I pretty rationally explained why the poor deserve a basic level of safety/decency in life, and pretty emphatically said "fuck you" to his ideas about them all being lazy and deserving to "die off". He wasn't even saying anything true- he was saying universally that all poor people were lazy (not true), that they deserved to die (not true), that all taxes were a form of theft (not true and I've been through that song and dance bullshit with guartz 10 times), and then blaming LIBRUHLS for everything wrong with the country and backing it up with the eloquent reasoning of ": bad idea." So I'm supposed to acquiesce to the guy based on there being a truth that some poor people are lazy which fueled his bullshit generalization that they all are? LOL. Note that MoS was flat-out mocked by several other posters. So if you want to talk about playing a game, look at you reaching for a "aha, gotcha!" with me simply because... fuck I dunno, you don't like me/my politics/woke up on the wrong side of the bed/whatevs? But here ya go, <admits to something he never denied>. Happy?

[archibaldcrane]

The main reason, in my opinion, to prop up the poor, is to help try to break the cycle of poverty for their kids.

Grown adults without mental/physical handicaps and without kids shouldn't be receiving much government aid.

But if a grown poor adult has a kid, you can't just say "fuck your poor children no money for you" or you are making the rich/poor gap and the inequalities of birth even greater.

This country's manufacturing base is nearly gone. Any person can't just work for the factory and make $20/hr with benefits and a pension anymore. Farming (which will always require domestic unskilled workers) isn't an option, as the workforce has been permanently fucked by illegal immigration. Blame whatever you want, but the opportunities available to our grandparents are in some ways not there for us and our kids. It is arguably harder now to reach middle class from a poor upbringing than it has been for a long time.

Say what you want about healthcare for adults, but the idea that this prosperous nation doesn't provide quality healthcare for all children is sickening.

[Amastacia]

Several pages late, oft-repeated, and a tad trite, but...

I can't think of many things from the Reagan administration worse than Reaganomics, but adding a distinctly negative connotation to the word "liberal" is one of them.

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what's wrong with being a liberal, any more than I can figure out what's wrong with being a conservative, or even being liberal on some issues and conservative on others.

On a side note, I wish we Americans would get over our image obsession. A little less need to show off wealth we (often don't actually) have, a little more financial maturity, please. I'm not pointing the finger at any particular groups or stereotypes here, I'm just depressed how ingrained it is in our culture now to flaunt both what you have and what you don't. Life is long, and taking anything other than the long view on it is foolish.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

What was wrong w/ reagonomics?