fixed that for ya.

20.3 Billion? That's not even 5% of a bailout. Chicken feed.

[Quote:]Originally Posted by capnhowdy
Also, taxes would be collected from drug dealers, prostitutes, scam artists, cash only 'contractors', etc.[/quote]
Gee, maybe if we just repealed the stupid laws on prostitution and drugs, those people would be taxed. It would also get rid of a lot of the violence associated with those crimes. And we should seriously prosecute contractors who pay that way (because they are usually hiring illegal workers). That sounds better to me than a flat tax, which I don't agree with. Unless it started very low for necessities and lower priced items, and graduated it for higher priced, luxury items. That is the only way it could work. People would paying that tax, on top of sales tax. So in a state where the sales tax is 8%, tack on another 22% and that is 30% tax on everything you buy. Can you imagine?

We are taxed to death in this country, because there are so many hidden taxes on stuff, like phones, and cell phones. WTF? Personally, if we're going to eliminate taxes, I say we eliminate taxes on actual working income. In other words, tax the money that people make on investments, because that's how most rich people make money. But don't tax them on their salaries, up to, say, $100,000. Then start gradually taxing incomes. Start at, say, 10%, and go up 2% every $25,000 until you get up to 35%. NO loopholes. Sounds fair enough to me.

I also think the whole charity writeoff might end up being a mistake. But you know, IF we actually had a living wage in this country, and people were paid fairly for the work they do, and we had a decent healthcare system, then we wouldn't need some charities. And the charities we did still have, well, people would make enough to donate to their causes anyway, IF we had a fair labor market. IMHO, the people who make the most money deserve it the least.

Oh yea? can you back that up with a citation. :D kidding.

You forgot to add "IMHO".

20.3 billion would go a long way as sorce of tax revenue.

AIG got 30 billion today ALONE.

I don't believe you should be paying 42%. I don't think anyone should pay that much. Not even Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Ok, maybe them. :D

I thought you had said somewhere that you didn't care if they raised taxes because you would hide your income. Sorry if I misunderstood. Maybe you were just being facetious.

And who ok'd that?

The new pack of dumbasses. Why?

TGRR,
Happy to hate on both sides.

Most likely just in a combative mood at the time over the issue. :p

OK, you're right. But you think people who work for tips are getting rich off of them? Personally, I think we do away with the whole tipping system. People expect tips now. Everyone wants a tip. Even people who don't deserve it. Those people should be paid a salary that they can live on. (btw, what does this mean? -->Kthxbai)

:D

You know me. Always ready to argue. :D Or were you talking about you?

Hey ya kettle. :D

Perhaps we should all just make the same amount?

its short for ok thanks goodbye

Damm socialist.

Obama's budget predicts 3.2% growth in 2010, 4% in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012 and 4.2 percent in 2013.

source source

:lol:

I don't think that. But I also think people at the top make way more than they should, at the expense of other employees. Carly Fiorina walked away with, what, 40 million bucks after driving HP into the ground. WTF? Why is she so valuable? Why are CEOs more valuable than cops or soldiers, who put their lives on the line, or teachers, who are supposed to be teaching our future leaders? Why is a janitor less valuable? Let's face it, he has a shitier job... :D

Kthxbai :p

And when HE wakes up from that dream and realizes it was just that, then what? Ohhhh we need more money - guess we'll all have to help a little more. That means tax increases on the middle class.

It really is limited and it will run out right after it is all given out. They only have one shot at this.

Yuppers... almost slipped by me.
Took me five years to post on this thread and two days to quit.
But I'll still read as you guys butcher the substandards. You know what I mean.
__________________

Hey, it is hard to get under the bar when it was already on the ground. :D

.:eyeball: :eyeball:

You know, I used to think that society was to blame for some people being stuck in the poor cycle, and to a certain extent I still do, but I've come to believe that some people are just plain stupid. It's not their fault really. They were born that way, and no amount of 'help' from society will ever change the fact that they're stupid.

My biggest challenge is that for those who were born stupid, how far should society be expected to go? Surely it's up to the families of stupid people to take care of them? I feel sorry for stupid people, but not sorry enough to think I should have to support them.

On the other hand, there's a whole bunch of people out there who're pretty damn smart but they insist on using their intelligence for bad instead of good, and get stuck in their cycle, which really just equates to another form of stupidity in my books.

The reason my opinion has changed in this regard is because of my husband. The story of his childhood would curl your toes, and yet he's educated and a leader in his field with a compassionate heart.

If you use your intelligence for good instead of bad, there's nothing you can't do.

Stupidity is by no means restricted to the poor.

I never suggested it was.

Well, then, there's a little problem with your original post. You stated an opinion that stupidity is the reason some or many poor people are poor. If that were the case, Ted Kennedy and Paris Hilton would be living under bridges.

If X percentage of poor people are stupid, and the same percentage of rich people are stupid, then you can reasonably discount stupidity as a root cause of poverty.

I think that there are some stupid wealthy people, but in the main, people who create their own wealth have employed some form of intelligence to achieve what they have, even if it's just the intelligence to work hard.

On the other hand, if people don't even have that much intelligence then yep, they'll stay poor.

Kennedy and Hilton didn't create their own wealth. They had nice little hand ups.

1. What percentage of truly wealthy people earned it themselves, as opposed to inheriting it?

2. I'd say the vast majority of those who DO make their own fortune don't do so by working hard. Voltaire once said that "behind every great fortune is a crime", and in the many cases, he's correct.

By that reasoning, stupid rich people should become poor.

You think the CEO of Halliburton or Exxon came out of the gutter?

If you want to talk about the elite rich who make up a very small percentage of our society, then you can do that by yourself.

I'm talking about why poor people sometimes or often stay poor due to either of my reasons stated above. I'm talking about how some poor people have the opportunity to escape 'poverty'. Not being poor doesn't mean you have to be rich. I means you're not poor. I didn't say that everyone could be mega rich if they worked hard. I suggested that some people could escape poverty if they worked hard as opposed to sitting on their arse smoking crack.

Stop twisting my words to start your own little wagon again.

btw, plenty of people have inherited money and blown the lot, or does that little factoid live outside your sphere of understanding?

1. I thought we were talking about the rich, not the middle class. My bad.

2. There's no reason to be rude.

There's no reason to be stupid either...unless you can't help it.

Sorry, I didn't know you were a troll.

Good day.

lol...get a grip.

You're the one that brought rich people into it. I was only ever talking about poor people and how they could stop being poor in some cases and my reasons for believing that. Not being poor doesn't equal being rich.

If you think it's rude that I ask you why you're failing to consider all the facts, then sorry about that. I guess you need to have a cup of concrete and harden up mate.

???

I'm not the one who got pissed off because someone didn't agree with you.

You should work on that.

It's always amazing to see how people manage to attribute emotions to a post that doesn't even include a smilie.

Yeah, I think it was the unwarranted, childish insults that gave me the impression you were angry.

Or just a petulant child. One or the other.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/fo...ult/jihaad.gif

lol...whatever you say. You must be right. Seems you're determined to repeat yourself. Off you go.

Do it again. :D

Don't mind if I do. :)

:corn:

What I said: Troll. A dime a dozen.

TGRR,
Off to see if this board has an ignore function.

yes it does

Found it.

One less worthless troll to deal with.

So how many of us has he accused of being trolls now? lol

Pretty soon he'll have no one to talk to.

There are plenty of poor people who are smart, but they couldn't escape the trap of poverty (and it is a trap, for many people, no matter how hard they try to get out).

Not all people who succeed do so because they are intelligent. Many of them succeed because they are corrupt, unethical, and immoral, and they prey on people.

As far as, how far should society go to support poor people, I think as long as we keep making rules and laws that only apply to certain segments of society or are applied differently to rich people, then it is our obligation as a society to take care of the people who don't have a chance. Personally, I really believe there is no reason why we can't end poverty. The problem is greed. Some people just think they entitled to more than others. I think it is really obscene that in a so called "civilized" society, one man could have many billions of dollars while there are people starving and living in cars. It's just, wrong.

There. The stupidity has vanished.

he's one to talk about trolls, right? ;)

[Edit out serious answer]

Shut up, hippie.

TGRR,
Getting into the swing of things.

Yeah, I gave a serious answer to her hilariously callous post.

I am a troll, obviously. I think I have this place figured out. Forget anything resembling an actual answer, ad hominem attack like an airhead when backed into a corner, and then make appeal to ridicule arguments.

I think I'm going to like this place, now that I understand the rules.

So do you not agree that there is a segment of society who live poorly because they've made bad decision - sometimes by way of stupidity - or simply because they don't try very hard to improve their lot in life?

While I agree that in some ways and from some perspectives, the distribution of wealth is inequitable, I just can't help but open my eyes to the fact that a lot of poor people needn't be poor.

Take Australia for example. There's really no reason why anyone should live below the poverty line considering we have a pretty good welfare system in place, and yet somehow there are people who can't get their shit together enough to use the help that's available to them.* I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it's a pretty good safety net for those who choose to take advantage of it.

*Issues of mental health come into this point, along with alcoholism and other addictive behaviours. Those are social problems which I believe we are all responsible for in some ways, but not all.

If you think you had me even close to backed into a corner you're deluding yourself.

Assuming you were talking to me, I hope you didn't waste too much time on it.

Also, you have a seriously ugly haircut, so your argument is invalid.

lol...nope, didn't waste much time at all. You're entertaining me and everyone else now.

You'd really do better to pop off to bed instead. ;)

Seriously. Is that a Liza Minelli wig?

Seriously. Is that the best you can do? Talk about childish. lol Ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black?

Mumble, mumble. Speak up. I can't hear you over that ignore thingie.

lol...stop answering then. Just fuck off instead. ;)

Well see, I would say addictive behaviors are personal responsibilty. yes, addictions are real, it is a real disease. And some people really do have serious problems dealing with their addictions. I know, I was sober for over 15 years. Now I drink wine and beer, but I rarely have more than 1 or 2 at a time. I couldn't have done that years ago when I got sober, but now I can, because I've learned how to curb that impulse.

The mental health system in this country is horrible. Reagan deregulated the system when he was president, and a whole lot of people ended up on the street. It is almost impossible to help someone who doesn't think they need help (and when do they ever?), unless they are an obvious danger. Hell, that guy in VA a few years ago who shot a whole bunch of people at a University had been on the radar for YEARS. People knew he was dangerous, yet he was still out in public and managed to buy a gun and ammunition. He should have been locked away and on medication.

You are lucky because Australia also has a pretty damn good health care system, from what I've heard and read. Here, health insurance has become so friggin' expensive many, many people can't afford it, and while we do have medicaid for poor people, many doctors won't take medicaid. I believe those costs have contributed to the cycle of poverty. Everything is connected.

The education system here sucks for poor people. It really is not equal in any sense. That contributes a LOT to poverty. And violence. There is a lot of violence and crime in poor neighborhoods. That also contributes to the cycle. Can people overcome that? Yes, but it is really unrealistic to think that all or most or even many poor people could overcome poverty in the system we have in place here. There just aren't enough jobs that pay well, and college is getting more expensive. And many skilled labor jobs now go to illegals, not Americans or legal immigrants, because they work for a lot less and don't complain, because they are illegal. In fact, that is happening now in white collar jobs as well. And the pay is getting worse for most people, unless you happen to be at the top.

Some people do work their ass off, and are good workers, but still have to work more than one job just to survive. It's obscene that a corporation can lay people off and cut benefits of other workers while paying lavish salaries and bonuses to the people at the top, even while losing money. That is happening more and more in this country. And in Australia, I have to wonder what the difference is in compensation rates. "American executive compensation rates are quite different from those of the rest of the developed world. In Japan a typical executive makes eleven times what a typical worker brings home; in Britain, 22 times. In America," it is almost 500 times, probably more now, because the link is from 2006. http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/executivepay.html (click on the icon of facts and figures.)

Do some people make stupid decisions and end up in bad situations? Yes. Look at what happened with the housing market here. Do rich pricks cause more damage than people making stupid mistakes? Yes, look at the world economy.

I would ask you to read Jonathan Kozol to better understand how it really works in this country. Here are links to information about him and his books: http://www.learntoquestion.com/seeva...E/homepage.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonath...l_b_63622.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Kozol

I guess it's true that things are very differen't in Aus than in the US. for one thing, our minimum wages are a lot higher here, and from what I can tell, are regulated by governments and unions far more stringently. Some US citizens have accused me of living in a nanny state because of these sorts of (what I see as) benefits.

It's all a matter of perspective. Probably hard to compare Australia and the US in any case.

Truce? ;)

Class warfare, your answers to the worlds ills will not be found here.

Egad! An Antipodean!

Probably an escaped convict living off the land. Hangings too good for 'em I say.

Toodle pip!

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4002/11065510.jpg