|
Who should pay more tax? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
a lot of time, its people on welfare who really dont need it, and who are using the money to buy expensive stuff. or its drug money, which u have to be kind of a big timer to buy an expensive car like an escalade, or hook up some cadillac to make it "gangsta". |
Do you actually have any evidence to back that up?! |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
My mum hates asylum seekers! Everytime she comes back from shopping in Sheffield she always always says "just been past the Peace Gardens and you should see all the asylum seekers with their mobile phones" and its exactly the same attitude as TVD saying about poor people with big TVs (and I always see satellite dishes outside near enuf every house in poor areas!) Some people spend every penny on a car. Its all material and its not a good indicator of wealth |
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?:conf: |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| 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?:conf: |
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) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| 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. :) |
|
|
| Dervish |
| 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 :p how times have changed (or atleast that brand). |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
In my day at school people who wore Puma's got a kicking :p 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! |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| 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. |
|
|
| zookeeper |
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. |
|
|
| zookeeper |
| 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"? |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| 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. |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| 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. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| 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? |
|
|
|
|
