TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Who should pay more tax?
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Maybe not a good indicator of wealth, but certainly a good indicator of misplaced priorities. You don't think a big screen TV is hard to save up for? Here in the states, they probably go for at least $700, depending of course on the kind of TV, but they can go to upwards of several thousand dollars. That is the equivalent of many weeks to MANY months worth of groceries. I don't think my argument was that these people are deceptively more wealthy that one would believe, rather that they are buying frivolous luxuries before taking care of the necessities. And in that scenario, why should hard working people with well organized priorities be forced to pay for the stupidity and back-asswards priorities of the people you so badly want to raise our taxes to help out?

Oh yea its misplaced priorities sure (altho you have to admit this is as much a myth as a hard fact - "I saw someone who lives in a poor area drive a nice car" is hardly an all encompassing observation!! Altho I do agree there are many instances)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Oh yea its misplaced priorities sure (altho you have to admit this is as much a myth as a hard fact - "I saw someone who lives in a poor area drive a nice car" is hardly an all encompassing observation!! Altho I do agree there are many instances)

Last I checked, physical observation was a good source of information to generate statistics. If we were talking about a handful of people, then it would be one thing, but it is pretty pervasive among many demographics. Another example would be the scores of cars I see with silly "ground effects" or spinners/Sprewells/Dubs, or the latest $200 Puma shoes, Gucci purses, etc, etc, etc. Sure, there are plenty of people who are not like this, but there are also plenty that are. I didn't say it was an issue in 100% of cases, but I'd venture to bet that the number is significant, since mine and many others' observations would confirm this.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka .... or the latest $200 Puma shoes, Gucci purses....

In my day at school people who wore Puma's got a kicking how times have changed (or atleast that brand).

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish In my day at school people who wore Puma's got a kicking how times have changed (or atleast that brand).

I remember when I wore Kangaroos. I could get a beating for simply admitting that, but the velcro pockets were just so hip!

I recently saw an ad for some new $250 Adidas. They have a damn LCD display and microchips to adjust the cushioning, not to mention some crazy LED display. Let me guess who will be the first person on my block to own a pair. Hint: it won't be me!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Last I checked, physical observation was a good source of information to generate statistics. If we were talking about a handful of people, then it would be one thing, but it is pretty pervasive among many demographics. Another example would be the scores of cars I see with silly "ground effects" or spinners/Sprewells/Dubs, or the latest $200 Puma shoes, Gucci purses, etc, etc, etc. Sure, there are plenty of people who are not like this, but there are also plenty that are. I didn't say it was an issue in 100% of cases, but I'd venture to bet that the number is significant, since mine and many others' observations would confirm this.

In all fairness, then one could also say that lots of people in the top income tax bracket are like Paris Hilton & Nicole Richie and other ritzy people who live in Beverly Hills and then claim that people who would benefit from getting rid of a progressive tax system just waste their money as it is and they didn't do much to earn it in the first place. I wouldn't say either is anywhere near accurate. Just because someone lives in a bad neighborhood doesn't mean that they are using welfare programs. Additionally they would have to be eligible by the guidelines of that state, which have become quite strict and they would have to follow all steps of the programs the state requires them to follow, including attending educational programs and actively seeking work for X amount of hours a week, most states X= near 40. After all that, they would not be able to earn enough money from the state to afford a Hummer by the point they use up their lifetime eligibility, even if they put every dollar they got into the cost. A book called "Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy" by Martin Gilens extensively studied media coverage of poverty and found that roughly 2/3 of all media coverage showed the poor as urban African-Americans, while they are less than 30% of the U.S. poor nationally, and far less of that percentage live in urban areas. Additionally he also looked at numerous public opinion studies that showed overwhelmingly people having a negative reaction to "welfare programs" but at the same time thought government should do MORE when they were asked about the individual items that welfare actually provides and were found to believe the money allocated for such programs were higher to begin with than the actual numbers. Much of this comes from what Gilens determines is an inaccurate depiction of who uses welfare programs and that they are undeserving of benefits.

I had started a thread, not a good as this one, touching on this subject from a class warfare perspective using TV as the medium. Poor are bombarded with images of "the good life" and I believe it creates envy (a deadly sin) and fiscal irresponsiblity ie: putting 1000.00 worth of rims on a Dodge Neon, or shoes that are not worth 5.00

If loopholes in the US tax law were closed, US citizens hiding income in offshore banks, and a better analysis of what is a capital gain, we may see a "more balanced" collection of taxes in the US from rich and poor.

I do think there is always an underlying reason why "poor" remain poor.

Or maybe we should go back to the feudal system.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 A book called "Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy" by Martin Gilens

Good book, why didn't you talk about "Workfare"?

quote:

Originally posted by zookeeper Good book, why didn't you talk about "Workfare"?

You could have workfare, but that seems much less efficient in terms of transitioning these people into the private sector once their benefits run out and they do not develop the skills & gain education that employers are looking for. With job preparation and seeking employment as part of current welfare, it is more designed to be used as sparingly and for as short of a time as possible, where workfare would be more long term.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Do you actually have any evidence to back that up?!

all i can give u is personal experience, but i sure as hell know that if i drove through the "hood" right now, i would see a few hooked up cadillacs. no joke.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: all i can give u is personal experience, but i sure as hell know that if i drove through the "hood" right now, i would see a few hooked up cadillacs. no joke.

And you would know right off the bat that these "brothas" are on welfare, right?

And how would you know that exactly?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And you would know right off the bat that these "brothas" are on welfare, right? And how would you know that exactly?

Well, watching them whip out a roll of food stamps and then drive off in the pimp-mobile.

Regardless of whether they are on welfare, when you drive through the slums and see shoddy houses with nice cars in the driveway, you should pick up on the fact that one of these things is not like the other.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And you would know right off the bat that these "brothas" are on welfare, right? And how would you know that exactly?

Actually, are these people that :TVD: and Shakka talking about actually on welfare/benefits, or are they just poor? Like you say, you can't tell if someone is on benefits but it is perhaps easier to tell if they are poor (area for example). If those two are refering to poor people then that is missing the point as we are discussing the effects of taking away benefits (I assume?) cos it is people without jobs who get benefits.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well, watching them whip out a roll of food stamps and then drive off in the pimp-mobile.

have you seriously ever seen that happening?

Even if you have, it cant have been many times. There are people who abuses the system, but that should not go out over everyone.

and as all the others already pointed out, just because you are in a bad neighourhood doesnt mean that you are on welfare, hence you can buy what the fuck you want to (if you rather have a nice car than a nice house, then thats their decision).

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew have you seriously ever seen that happening?

Absolutely. We used to by a car every year in college for homecoming. I remember one year we bought a limo with a glovebox full of foodstamps.

quote:

Even if you have, it cant have been many times. There are people who abuses the system, but that should not go out over everyone.

True, but I'm not claiming that it's pervasive, but it is absolutely out there. It's not too hard to manipulate the system if you really want to, provided you can live with your own guilty conscience(sp?).

quote:

and as all the others already pointed out, just because you are in a bad neighourhood doesnt mean that you are on welfare, hence you can buy what the fuck you want to (if you rather have a nice car than a nice house, then thats their decision).

I'm not claiming that's the case. I said on the previous page that I am not foolish enough to think it's something that happens 100% of the time. Not even 50% of the time. But it happens, and I bet it happens more than you realize.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Absolutely. We used to by a car every year in college for homecoming. I remember one year we bought a limo with a glovebox full of foodstamps.

Was this before the mid-90s reforms took place? Most states now do not use actual stamps, they've been replaced by magnetic strip cards, which are much better regulated.

quote:

True, but I'm not claiming that it's pervasive, but it is absolutely out there. It's not too hard to manipulate the system if you really want to, provided you can live with your own guilty conscience(sp?). I'm not claiming that's the case. I said on the previous page that I am not foolish enough to think it's something that happens 100% of the time. Not even 50% of the time. But it happens, and I bet it happens more than you realize.

Absolutely there's some misuse and corruption, but at least TvD was saying that the poor do not need our help because they are doing fine and taking our money, which is why our taxes are high. Especially since welfare reform, it has been much more strict and more difficult to obtain benefits, even denying many people who are not trying to cheat the system. The fact is that welfare programs are not why our taxes are high to begin with anyway.

If anyone can show what the figures are on people in the hood driving fancy cars and abusing the welfare rolls, I'd like to see them, because that's not what I've seen firsthand from people actually obtaining benefits and considering the agencies working with these people have a shortage of funding and only a limited capacity, they take significant steps to make sure those getting services follow guidlines.

Let's also not forget that sometimes money that is used to purchase the "pimpmobile" is not taxable (declared, legit.et al) income. Thus people would be eligible for food stamps and welfare benefits, in the eyes of the govt.

1st hand info: I was behind a gentleman in a grocery line, he was paying for his purchase with food stamps (which is ok with me). He gets very upset at having to pay for an item which was taxable. I looked into his wallet, and I saw 100s, 50s, and 20s. He could have easily payed with cash, what gives?

Does anyone remember Tupac? When he showed up to get his welfare check in a limo? The checks, from the record label came in before the Department of Social Services ever caught on.
Royalty checks are not subject to withholding tax, nor are many investments (K1s are not always reported) and can be hidden without IRS knowledge.

If some abuse of the welfare system is enough to warrant elimination or massive, tough crackdowns, should the fact that some people who are wrongly convicted warrant the elimination of the penal system or a much stiffer burden of proof on the part of the state? Perhaps the complete elimination of the death penalty? Common sense tells me that these should only become issues if they are systemic problems.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider If some abuse of the welfare system is enough to warrant elimination or massive, tough crackdowns, should the fact that some people who are wrongly convicted warrant the elimination of the penal system or a much stiffer burden of proof on the part of the state? Perhaps the complete elimination of the death penalty? Common sense tells me that these should only become issues if they are systemic problems.

Hell yeah!

We are constantly striving to improve our criminal justice system, but what is being done to correct, or at least attempt to correct, flaws in the welfare system? I think there are problems with both. I wasn't advocating eliminating welfare altogether, but clearly we spend too much on programs and every dollar that is wasted on the margin that can be saved is a step in the right direction.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka We are constantly striving to improve our criminal justice system, but what is being done to correct, or at least attempt to correct, flaws in the welfare system?

What exactly has been improved? I've seen just as many changes to the judicial system as I have seen in the welfare system. In other words, I haven't seen any tangible changes at all . But I agree with you on principle.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What exactly has been improved? I've seen just as many changes to the judicial system as I have seen in the welfare system. In other words, I haven't seen any tangible changes at all . But I agree with you on principle.

I guess I'm thinking more from the prosecution standpoint. Improvements in science, technology and the analysis from them have enabled for more accurate prosecution of criminals. I suppose it's mostly technological improvements(DNA analysis for example), but it has certainly helped. Granted, there is always room for improvement, but I think the system is in much better shape than it was just 10 years ago.

So why haven't taxes & government expenditures gone down considering the welfare rolls have been reduced by more than half over the last decade (the end of AFDC)? Maybe because means tested programs aren't the reason our taxes are high?

The court thing has something to do with it though, since the prison population is now over 2 million. That means 2 million people who broke the law are getting free meals & shelter for breaking the law, many of which are in for minor drug offenses. Not to mention that these people also require costly security that is more of a burden than any average poor person would require from the state. Considering the workload that public defenders carry, I don't think the system has really been reformed.

Anyway, back to welfare, the urban poor are not the majority of recipients and it still seems that's what's being focused on here as why welfare programs are a problem and are abused. The percentage of actual abuse in the system still is within a margin of 1 - 100% in the argument for further reform. If it were seriously near 20% I would certainly be in favor of further reform as well, but where is the evidence of this? It just seems like the argument is being simplified to "my taxes are high because I've seen a couple of people in black urban neighborhoods that had money and may have been cheating the system" which is an update of the Reagan "welfare queen image." The reality is most welfare recipients live in average towns, not the hood.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 The reality is most welfare recipients live in average towns, not the hood.

...putting on my devil's advocate coat for a sec...


If you have people with below average incomes living in average towns, maybe there is a problem with living beyond their means? I don't want to imply that I think they should be herded up and placed in low-income housing, that's certainly not my intent. Just sayin...

Yes, I know. I'm insensitive. As I've said many times before, I have no problem having a percentage of my income going to certain programs and whatnot, but I'd much prefer to do it on my terms. I made the money, I should have the say in where it goes. It's not the government's money. They've already got their hands too deep in my pockets.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka ...putting on my devil's advocate coat for a sec... If you have people with below average incomes living in average towns, maybe there is a problem with living beyond their means? I don't want to imply that I think they should be herded up and placed in low-income housing, that's certainly not my intent. Just sayin... Yes, I know. I'm insensitive. As I've said many times before, I have no problem having a percentage of my income going to certain programs and whatnot, but I'd much prefer to do it on my terms. I made the money, I should have the say in where it goes. It's not the government's money. They've already got their hands too deep in my pockets.

Playing the ol' advocate is always a great way to help strengthen arguements

The reason most people can live in average towns is because they use the programs temporarily. This is similar to bankruptcy causes like job loss, divorce and medical bills. Divorce or separation is quite a common reason people use the system, because there are children who have needs to be met while in transition.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Playing the ol' advocate is always a great way to help strengthen arguements The reason most people can live in average towns is because they use the programs temporarily. This is similar to bankruptcy causes like job loss, divorce and medical bills. Divorce or separation is quite a common reason people use the system, because there are children who have needs to be met while in transition.

Divorce is unfortunate, and I feel for the kids and the single mothers that usually result, but god damn if it's got to be society's responsiblity that 2 adults can't sort their shit out and become a drain on the rest of us. People that can't afford to raise children should not be having children. It's a sad fact, but it is true. Divorce is a serious problem in American society. I find it extremely sad that one out of every two couples ends in divorce.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Divorce is unfortunate, and I feel for the kids and the single mothers that usually result, but god damn if it's got to be society's responsiblity that 2 adults can't sort their shit out and become a drain on the rest of us. People that can't afford to raise children should not be having children. It's a sad fact, but it is true. Divorce is a serious problem in American society. I find it extremely sad that one out of every two couples ends in divorce.

Well thank goodness we have Republicans willing to push through legislation to outlaw gay marriages - that way we'll have one less thing to worry about that threatens the sanctity of marriage.....

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.