| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/15/2012 03:50:03 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It sounds great to throw out that the rich will pay 15% and the middle class will pay 25%... |
The *CURRENT* Ryan plan sets rates at 10% and 25% while eliminating deductions and loopholes. He doesn't specify which deductions and loopholes, but it would basically have to be ALL of them (plus higher rates on the middle class) for the plan to work. You can check my math, but the current 15% capital gains rate is a lower number than 25% with no deductions or loopholes. |
Hmmm. I'm not sure how to get you to see what I'm talking about. The reality is that "25% with no deductions or loopholes" is still not 25%. it will be a lower effective rate. The stepped nature of our tax code does not qualify as a deduction or a loophole. This would never be changed because without it you might have a large difference in your tax bill with an unlucky additional $1 in income. Maybe you can help me by linking a source for info about Ryan's current tax plan? |
Ok, I found the PDF of his plan and some numbers. I'll illustrate my point with some examples.
We'll assume capital gains of 15% (if it's zero we can both agree that's ridiculous).
Two tax brackets 10% and 25% with a cutoff of $100,000 for a single individual between the two.
We'll ditch all deductions (unlikely, but we'll take them at their word).
If you make up to $100,000 it's easy to see that you pay 10% in tax.
If you make $150,000 you will pay $10,000 plus 25% of $50,000 for a total of $22,500. This is 15%.
So, to summarize. If you make less than $150,000 you will pay an effective tax rate lower than capital gains. If you make more than $150,000 you will pay more (approaching, but never actually reaching 25%).
So, under the Ryan plan, you will be screwed if you make over $150,000 compared to the capital gains guy (though it goes up slowly, at $200,000 you are paying 17.5% or 2.5% more than capital gains).
As a talking point, it doesn't quite hit home as much to say, "If you are an individual making $150,000 or a family making $300,000 a year or more, you want to be wary of Paul Ryan's tax plan because you will pay a higher % of your money than someone making their wealth through capital gains."
See why I consider it spin?
PS: I am not for the Ryan tax plan, but for other reasons. Doing away with deductions will generate new taxes on a lot of people making not a lot of money right now (though it will be an effective rate less than 15%).
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 15:52:08. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 03:54:32 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Not to mention single moms who pay practically as much in child care as they make working. It makes no sense to subsidize child care and not subsidize child rearing to me. Why have a middle man? Why give the mom money to pay someone else to watch her kids if she'd rather take that money and watch them herself? They do this in some European countries. It's called investing in your people. |
How do you stop someone from having 20 kids from collecting? They'd have kids so they can ride the system.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 15:55:18. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 03:57:24 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Not to mention single moms who pay practically as much in child care as they make working. It makes no sense to subsidize child care and not subsidize child rearing to me. Why have a middle man? Why give the mom money to pay someone else to watch her kids if she'd rather take that money and watch them herself? They do this in some European countries. It's called investing in your people. |
How do you stop someone from having 20 kids from collecting? They'd have kids so they can ride the system. |
Come on ........ |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 04:12:38 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Not to mention single moms who pay practically as much in child care as they make working. It makes no sense to subsidize child care and not subsidize child rearing to me. Why have a middle man? Why give the mom money to pay someone else to watch her kids if she'd rather take that money and watch them herself? They do this in some European countries. It's called investing in your people. |
How do you stop someone from having 20 kids from collecting? They'd have kids so they can ride the system. |
Come on ........ |
General, there are indeed entire cultures that value just how much you get for free from the system, and entire communities engage in scamming the system. Don't act so incredulous. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 04:15:34 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Venser:
How do you stop someone from having 20 kids from collecting? They'd have kids so they can ride the system. |
Come on ........ |
That would solve the problem.
All kidding aside, there are definitely people who would ride this out. Isn't your (US) disability list growing at an alarming rate? Methinks people would rather ride the system than actually have to put in a honest days work.
edit - I jumped topics there, but I see them as the same; people finding ways to not having to do something for themselves.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 16:21:40. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 04:41:29 PM · #81 |
You think having and raising 20 kids on what passes for welfare in this country isn't "doing something"? I'd call it a miracle. Stop thinking that it doesn't take "work" to survive on a poverty-level income. I dare you to eat for two months on a food-stamp budget, and tell me it doesn't take "work."
I bet a single mom on a "working welfare" program works a heckuva lot harder than most legislators ... |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 04:55:36 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You think having and raising 20 kids on what passes for welfare in this country isn't "doing something"? I'd call it a miracle. Stop thinking that it doesn't take "work" to survive on a poverty-level income. I dare you to eat for two months on a food-stamp budget, and tell me it doesn't take "work."
I bet a single mom on a "working welfare" program works a heckuva lot harder than most legislators ... |
Oh come on... raising the children that are the future of our society has no value! You gotta get really good at buying companies and destroying them. Now THERE is your value. There you can make billions. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 04:56:47 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Venser:
How do you stop someone from having 20 kids from collecting? They'd have kids so they can ride the system. |
Come on ........ |
That would solve the problem.
All kidding aside, there are definitely people who would ride this out. Isn't your (US) disability list growing at an alarming rate? Methinks people would rather ride the system than actually have to put in a honest days work. |
And we agree again... We've gotta stop this or we'll be friends soon. :) |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 04:57:49 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You think having and raising 20 kids on what passes for welfare in this country isn't "doing something"? I'd call it a miracle. Stop thinking that it doesn't take "work" to survive on a poverty-level income. I dare you to eat for two months on a food-stamp budget, and tell me it doesn't take "work."
I bet a single mom on a "working welfare" program works a heckuva lot harder than most legislators ... |
Oh come on... raising the children that are the future of our society has no value! You gotta get really good at buying companies and destroying them. Now THERE is your value. There you can make billions. |
My issue is that the children raised in this environment are more likely to continue the cycle than become tax payers. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 04:59:32 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You think having and raising 20 kids on what passes for welfare in this country isn't "doing something"? I'd call it a miracle. Stop thinking that it doesn't take "work" to survive on a poverty-level income. I dare you to eat for two months on a food-stamp budget, and tell me it doesn't take "work."
I bet a single mom on a "working welfare" program works a heckuva lot harder than most legislators ... |
I can't argue that they're more useful than most legislators... But I'm happy to argue that they are a drain on society, without a clear benefit to the group. Frankly, this culture is the source of a large proportion of the criminals we're paying to try, convict and house as well..
This is broken, and you darn well know it, not sure why you're defending this so aggressively. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:01:42 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Oh come on... raising the children that are the future of our society has no value! |
Again with the hyperbole. That's not what I wrote. I mentioned there would be people who abuse the system implying that checks and balances need to be put in place to avoid this. Plus what Cory just wrote.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
You gotta get really good at buying companies and destroying them. Now THERE is your value. There you can make billions. |
What does this have to do with the original comment you're responding to? They're completely disjoint.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 17:02:31. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:08:24 PM · #87 |
Here's my take with a religious slant. Last week we were talking about doing social justice in the community. Next weekend 50 churches are doing community work beautifying school properties and other charities (eg. HIV alliance). Then on Sunday we are going to have a fair where we hand out 10,000 backpacks, shoes, and school supplies to kids in the community. This is the second year it's been done and is called Project Hope. While giving his sermon our pastor said some people objected last year because not everybody in line looked like they needed a handout of a backpack and shoes. To this he replied that he would rather risk being a fool for Jesus by supplying someone who doesn't need it when the 9 people in front of them did and got what they needed.
Feel free to remove Jesus, but my take on welfare is I'd rather risk the small pool of abusers if it meant helping those who truly need a safety net to get by.
So be it and amen.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 17:08:59. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:11:56 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's my take with a religious slant. Last week we were talking about doing social justice in the community. Next weekend 50 churches are doing community work beautifying school properties and other charities (eg. HIV alliance). Then on Sunday we are going to have a fair where we hand out 10,000 backpacks, shoes, and school supplies to kids in the community. This is the second year it's been done and is called Project Hope. While giving his sermon our pastor said some people objected last year because not everybody in line looked like they needed a handout of a backpack and shoes. To this he replied that he would rather risk being a fool for Jesus by supplying someone who doesn't need it when the 9 people in front of them did and got what they needed.
Feel free to remove Jesus, but my take on welfare is I'd rather risk the small pool of abusers if it meant helping those who truly need a safety net to get by.
So be it and amen. |
I think that's a pretty poor way to go. Why not at least attempt to sort out those who do and do not need?
Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:13:50 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Oh come on... raising the children that are the future of our society has no value! |
Again with the hyperbole. That's not what I wrote. I mentioned there would be people who abuse the system implying that checks and balances need to be put in place to avoid this. Plus what Cory just wrote.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
You gotta get really good at buying companies and destroying them. Now THERE is your value. There you can make billions. |
What does this have to do with the original comment you're responding to? They're completely disjoint. |
Of course it's hyperbole. I don't get why you keep taking everything personally as if I'm attacking what you say! I was making the point that in general in America (and other western countries I'm sure) we tend to tie money to worth when in reality the 2 usually have very little to do with one another. A teacher, mother, nurse, etc, are integral pieces of society and are paid low wages (or in the case of mothers, none at all), where as others become billionaires by doing nothing of real value, just swapping money around.
It's really disgusting to me the focus on a small minority of people who may or may not abuse the system but really have no impact on the economy over paying attention to the small minority of people who no doubt abuse the system and DO effect the economy on a massive scale and get rich in the process. In other words, abusing the system is fine as long as you're rich, if you're poor, shame on you.
If you show me a welfare mother next to Romney and ask me who is doing more to undermine the economy, it's a no brainer. Why waste time berating a welfare mom barely surviving and then elect a man like Romney president? It's like a bad episode of Twilight Zone. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:14:03 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Venser:
All kidding aside, there are definitely people who would ride this out.
edit - I jumped topics there, but I see them as the same; people finding ways to not having to do something for themselves. |
We were talking about how the Republican plan for reforming the tax system shifts more of the burden from the wealthy to the middle class (what's left of it) and the working poor. You're the one who brought in the idea that there are hordes of women having children just you collect a welfare payment -- an idea with no basis in reality whatsoever. Whatever such cases may exist are dwarfed (in their effect on the economy) by the shennanigans employed by the wealthy to avoid anything to "promote the general welfare" (from the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States) ...
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 17:16:50. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:14:51 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's my take with a religious slant. Last week we were talking about doing social justice in the community. Next weekend 50 churches are doing community work beautifying school properties and other charities (eg. HIV alliance). Then on Sunday we are going to have a fair where we hand out 10,000 backpacks, shoes, and school supplies to kids in the community. This is the second year it's been done and is called Project Hope. While giving his sermon our pastor said some people objected last year because not everybody in line looked like they needed a handout of a backpack and shoes. To this he replied that he would rather risk being a fool for Jesus by supplying someone who doesn't need it when the 9 people in front of them did and got what they needed.
Feel free to remove Jesus, but my take on welfare is I'd rather risk the small pool of abusers if it meant helping those who truly need a safety net to get by.
So be it and amen. |
A miracle has occurred Doc. We agree! |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:18:08 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's my take with a religious slant. Last week we were talking about doing social justice in the community. Next weekend 50 churches are doing community work beautifying school properties and other charities (eg. HIV alliance). Then on Sunday we are going to have a fair where we hand out 10,000 backpacks, shoes, and school supplies to kids in the community. This is the second year it's been done and is called Project Hope. While giving his sermon our pastor said some people objected last year because not everybody in line looked like they needed a handout of a backpack and shoes. To this he replied that he would rather risk being a fool for Jesus by supplying someone who doesn't need it when the 9 people in front of them did and got what they needed.
Feel free to remove Jesus, but my take on welfare is I'd rather risk the small pool of abusers if it meant helping those who truly need a safety net to get by.
So be it and amen. |
I think that's a pretty poor way to go. Why not at least attempt to sort out those who do and do not need?
Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles. |
How do you do that ask for pay stubs? Does one have to look destitute to need help? It's funny when I was volunteering in Haiti, all of us privileged foreigners in general looked and dressed worse than the Haitians. They thought we were dirty and stinky and that we didn't care how we looked. :P You don't have to look poor to be poor.
Drug testing for welfare is the biggest bunch of bullcrap. We had a debate on here before about that but long story short it costs more money than it saves and it makes it seem as if a higher population of poor do drugs which is not true. If we test welfare recipients we should trust ALL people getting money from the government. If not it's descrimination. Not so common sense after all. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:19:50 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's my take with a religious slant. Last week we were talking about doing social justice in the community. Next weekend 50 churches are doing community work beautifying school properties and other charities (eg. HIV alliance). Then on Sunday we are going to have a fair where we hand out 10,000 backpacks, shoes, and school supplies to kids in the community. This is the second year it's been done and is called Project Hope. While giving his sermon our pastor said some people objected last year because not everybody in line looked like they needed a handout of a backpack and shoes. To this he replied that he would rather risk being a fool for Jesus by supplying someone who doesn't need it when the 9 people in front of them did and got what they needed.
Feel free to remove Jesus, but my take on welfare is I'd rather risk the small pool of abusers if it meant helping those who truly need a safety net to get by.
So be it and amen. |
I think that's a pretty poor way to go. Why not at least attempt to sort out those who do and do not need?
Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles. |
How do you do that ask for pay stubs? Does one have to look destitute to need help? It's funny when I was volunteering in Haiti, all of us privileged foreigners in general looked and dressed worse than the Haitians. They thought we were dirty and stinky and that we didn't care how we looked. :P You don't have to look poor to be poor.
Drug testing for welfare is the biggest bunch of bullcrap. We had a debate on here before about that but long story short it costs more money than it saves and it makes it seem as if a higher population of poor do drugs which is not true. If we test welfare recipients we should trust ALL people getting money from the government. If not it's descrimination. Not so common sense after all. |
Just how many welfare recipients did you grow up with?
I speak from direct experience, which, I assure you, is not bullcrap. Frankly, most of the folks I knew or know who are on the system do have drug problems, which is often the real genesis of their problems that caused them to be on welfare in the first place... Call it BS if you want, but I've lived it.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 17:21:56. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:20:35 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's my take with a religious slant. Last week we were talking about doing social justice in the community. Next weekend 50 churches are doing community work beautifying school properties and other charities (eg. HIV alliance). Then on Sunday we are going to have a fair where we hand out 10,000 backpacks, shoes, and school supplies to kids in the community. This is the second year it's been done and is called Project Hope. While giving his sermon our pastor said some people objected last year because not everybody in line looked like they needed a handout of a backpack and shoes. To this he replied that he would rather risk being a fool for Jesus by supplying someone who doesn't need it when the 9 people in front of them did and got what they needed.
Feel free to remove Jesus, but my take on welfare is I'd rather risk the small pool of abusers if it meant helping those who truly need a safety net to get by.
So be it and amen. |
I think that's a pretty poor way to go. Why not at least attempt to sort out those who do and do not need?
Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles. |
It depends if the attempt to do the sorting costs more than the savings and if the accuracy of the sorting is high. You will also still have abusers. The general point is that some abuse of the system is no reason, in my book, to can the whole system. If a system has to be 100% efficient in our country for it to fly then we aren't going to have many systems, are we?
Just saying there is a woman out there with 20 kids because she's gaming the welfare system does nothing for me. The argument would have to show me the magnitude of the problem before I'll pay attention. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:22:41 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's my take with a religious slant. Last week we were talking about doing social justice in the community. Next weekend 50 churches are doing community work beautifying school properties and other charities (eg. HIV alliance). Then on Sunday we are going to have a fair where we hand out 10,000 backpacks, shoes, and school supplies to kids in the community. This is the second year it's been done and is called Project Hope. While giving his sermon our pastor said some people objected last year because not everybody in line looked like they needed a handout of a backpack and shoes. To this he replied that he would rather risk being a fool for Jesus by supplying someone who doesn't need it when the 9 people in front of them did and got what they needed.
Feel free to remove Jesus, but my take on welfare is I'd rather risk the small pool of abusers if it meant helping those who truly need a safety net to get by.
So be it and amen. |
I think that's a pretty poor way to go. Why not at least attempt to sort out those who do and do not need?
Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles. |
It depends if the attempt to do the sorting costs more than the savings and if the accuracy of the sorting is high. You will also still have abusers. The general point is that some abuse of the system is no reason, in my book, to can the whole system. If a system has to be 100% efficient in our country for it to fly then we aren't going to have many systems, are we?
Just saying there is a woman out there with 20 kids because she's gaming the welfare system does nothing for me. The argument would have to show me the magnitude of the problem before I'll pay attention. |
Make a trip to Miami sometime... I'll be glad to show you around. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:48:31 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's my take with a religious slant. Last week we were talking about doing social justice in the community. Next weekend 50 churches are doing community work beautifying school properties and other charities (eg. HIV alliance). Then on Sunday we are going to have a fair where we hand out 10,000 backpacks, shoes, and school supplies to kids in the community. This is the second year it's been done and is called Project Hope. While giving his sermon our pastor said some people objected last year because not everybody in line looked like they needed a handout of a backpack and shoes. To this he replied that he would rather risk being a fool for Jesus by supplying someone who doesn't need it when the 9 people in front of them did and got what they needed.
Feel free to remove Jesus, but my take on welfare is I'd rather risk the small pool of abusers if it meant helping those who truly need a safety net to get by.
So be it and amen. |
I think that's a pretty poor way to go. Why not at least attempt to sort out those who do and do not need?
Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles. |
How do you do that ask for pay stubs? Does one have to look destitute to need help? It's funny when I was volunteering in Haiti, all of us privileged foreigners in general looked and dressed worse than the Haitians. They thought we were dirty and stinky and that we didn't care how we looked. :P You don't have to look poor to be poor.
Drug testing for welfare is the biggest bunch of bullcrap. We had a debate on here before about that but long story short it costs more money than it saves and it makes it seem as if a higher population of poor do drugs which is not true. If we test welfare recipients we should trust ALL people getting money from the government. If not it's discrimination. Not so common sense after all. |
Just how many welfare recipients did you grow up with?
I speak from direct experience, which, I assure you, is not bullcrap. Frankly, most of the folks I knew or know who are on the system do have drug problems, which is often the real genesis of their problems that caused them to be on welfare in the first place... Call it BS if you want, but I've lived it. |
You are making the mistake of using anecdote as fact. It doesn't change the fact that it costs more money than it saves and there ARE drug users among the entire economic spectrum. Why test people that need help and not people that are running the country? Seems it should be the other way around, if I believed in drug testing. Which I don't. I think it's ineffective and an invasion if privacy. You can't get much more improper than taking a person's piss. Heck why not just search their house for drugs while we're at it?
Also, you have no idea what circumstances I grew up in and it's none of your business so perhaps you should keep your accusations to yourself.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 17:50:19. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:48:53 PM · #97 |
| PS I'm sitting in Miami right now. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:52:18 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
PS I'm sitting in Miami right now. |
There ya go, guys! Go find each other and have a REAL debate! |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:54:28 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Make a trip to Miami sometime... I'll be glad to show you around. |
Deal. Come up to Eugene and I'll give you a tour of the Women and Children's wing of the Mission. We can compare notes. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 05:58:27 PM · #100 |
|
