How's this for different morals?

[elliott20]

you do realize that a lot of the times it has very little to do with being lazy right?

A variety of things help contribute to people having lower income jobs such as lower level of education (which is often tied to financial backing), cost of living within the area, popularity of said occupational choice, etc.

To simply call all low income earners lazy is not just offensive, it's downright incorrect.

Chris Gardner, btw, works in the financial industry, which by it's own nature is all about commissions and what not. In that case, yes, working harder can mean more money.

But for people with salaried jobs, working harder does not equate to more money. It just means you're less likely to get fired.

[Blond Adult Girl]

you do realize that a lot of the times it has very little to do with being lazy right?

A variety of things help contribute to people having lower income jobs such as lower level of education (which is often tied to financial backing), cost of living within the area, popularity of said occupational choice, etc.

To simply call all low income earners lazy is not just offensive, it's downright incorrect.

Chris Gardner, btw, works in the financial industry, which by it's own nature is all about commissions and what not. In that case, yes, working harder can mean more money.

But for people with salaried jobs, working harder does not equate to more money. It just means you're less likely to get fired.

Sorry Elliot, but this is the United states of america. the poor in this country would be filthy rich in countriesd like Mexico, the Central American countires, the Indies, and all the African countries.

"Lower level of education" my a$$. Its still ten times better then most everyone else in the world. And "cost of living"? We in America have a "keeping up with the Jonses" mentality that makes the cost of living "too high," when really its a matter of being spoiled.

[elliott20]

you do realize that a lot of the times it has very little to do with being lazy right?

A variety of things help contribute to people having lower income jobs such as lower level of education (which is often tied to financial backing), cost of living within the area, popularity of said occupational choice, etc.

To simply call all low income earners lazy is not just offensive, it's downright incorrect.

Chris Gardner, btw, works in the financial industry, which by it's own nature is all about commissions and what not. In that case, yes, working harder can mean more money.

But for people with salaried jobs, working harder does not equate to more money. It just means you're less likely to get fired.

Sorry Elliot, but this is the United states of america. the poor in this country would be filthy rich in countriesd like Mexico, the Central American countires, the Indies, and all the African countries.

That's hardly matters. We're talking about American taxation of lower to middle class income families compared to upper class income families. The fact that american income is worth a lot in foreign countries means nothing. Further, cost of living is not just a case of "living with the jones". In fact, you will find that income is more often than, inextricably linked TO cost of living in an area. That's why if I were to move back to NYC, I could probably command a 30%-40% pay increase without having to gain any additional training or experience. It functions directly into how companies select and determine employment salaries. Thus, cost of living IS pertinant.

We're not talking about costs of luxuries here. We're talking about costs of housing, food, water, utilities, and healthcare here. We're not talking about some spoilt brat driving a Jeep that mommy and daddy bought her for graduating college. We're talking about people just earning enough money to afford putting a roof over their heads, 3 meals, and cover basic living costs.

Comparing American Income and American taxation in conjunction with Third world country living standards, and then complaining about how the middle class is too spoilt, just shows more of a disconnect in argument and reality.

[Lena]

Since when are they trying to end social security?[/color]

That was little georgey's big domestic policy , you don't remember ? His class don't need pensions and medicare so he figured why should they pay ? The fool wanted to make it voluntary and privatize it so his rich banker friends wud get richer too !

tax cuts are for everyone, not just rich people. They may benefit rich people more them middle class people, but thats only because of the laws of American economics[/color].


The tax cuts seem to mostly favor the rich and corprtaions owned by the rich ...............not working & middle class people .Look what elliot says!

its not the rich's fault that so many Americans are lazy and don't want to work. They pay far more taxes then they need to (the wealthiest 50% pay 97% of the nations taxes, and the wealthiest 15% PAY 75% OF THE TAXES).
That is socialism, and it is horrible. Communism is only one step ahead.

elliot says those are rush limbaugh staistics ...........Please, I learned at 10 don't believe anything a doper tells you and later how don't listen to rich people who call being taxed there fair share bad or communism . Also I see many rich people at work where they talk abouyt trips to Europe & Asia , 2 or 3 expensive cars , kids at private schools , and boats .If thats suffering under communism where do I go to suffer......? I think I can bare life with a Volvo and summer home


color=blue]everybody in Washington is pro-Amnesty, and anti union? Unions were needed 70 years ago, but now they've gotten too fat and happy. They've demanded so much that businesses are just like "screw it, we're going to move to places where people are happy with half of the wages we would shell out in America." [/color]

The rich want amnesty for cheap labor , also do think your wrong and unpatriotic to say Americans are lazy . There milions upon millions of people out there working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet .We need uniouns more then ever , too much cost cutting & globalization .Working & midle class people have to get tough and lpok out for themselves more!

Top

[Blond Adult Girl]

We're talking about people just earning enough money to afford putting a roof over their heads, 3 meals, and cover basic living costs

Every American can do that if they put in the work necessary. No condition in this country is so harsh that you need the government to give you free handouts.

[Blond Adult Girl]

That was little georgey's big domestic policy , you don't remember ? His class don't need pensions and medicare so he figured why should they pay ? The fool wanted to make it voluntary and privatize it so his rich banker friends wud get richer too! Privitizing it is not "getting rid of it."


elliot says those are rush limbaugh staistics ...........Please, I learned at 10 don't believe anything a doper tells you and later how don't listen to rich people who call being taxed there fair share bad or communism . Also I see many rich people at work where they talk abouyt trips to Europe & Asia , 2 or 3 expensive cars , kids at private schools , and boats .If thats suffering under communism where do I go to suffer......? I think I can bare life with a Volvo and summer home I got those stats from the IRS website, and its not "their fair share." They worked to get that money, and the government is over taxing them. It IS socialism, and it is terrible.

The rich want amnesty for cheap labor , also do think your wrong and unpatriotic to say Americans are lazy . There milions upon millions of people out there working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet .We need uniouns more then ever , too much cost cutting & globalization .Working & midle class people have to get tough and lpok out for themselves more! Yeah, 2-3 jobs are needed to reach their rediculous standards of living! "Making things meet"? BULL! One man can provide all the bread necessary, but now a days, every American is suposedly entitled to all the luxeries wealthy people have. Food, clothing, and shelter is enough for pity's sake!.

[Lena]

Privitizing it is not "getting rid of it."[/color]


Privatising and making it voluntary to boot was the first step .I know my generation , can't se too many contributing and the system wud die as little georgey ( who remember was born filthy rich and never had to worrry about saving for old age ) had planned ...................


e I got those stats from the IRS website, and its not "their fair share." They worked to get that money, and the government is over taxing them. It IS socialism, and it is terrible.

If elliot says the stats are from rush limbaugh I will go along , he's honest and smart . Don'think theres anything wrong that people who benefit so much from society being the way it is pay the most . Also know they have all sorts of ways to get out out ofpaying thru tax dodges . Just eysterday learned the trillionaire investor Warren Buffet pays just 17% of his income in taxes while he has employees who pay over 33% here and 55% in Canada .How can that be right ? Socialism , communism ? Hmmm, well it'd be OK for me to pay alot of taxes if I still had enough left over to afford a big house, the Volvo car , a cottage on a lake ,and a huge mega vacation every year .

Also don't know how experienced you are outside of your own enviorment but I've been working around rich people for 9 years at hotels and private clubs now and have gotten the idea most of them had it all handed to them . The big exception is a old neighborhood who worked for everything she has & is now a really well off bond trader in Atlanta who is a big Democrat too.................

Yeah, 2-3 jobs are needed to reach their rediculous standards of living! "Making things meet"? BULL! One man can provide all the bread necessary, but now a days, every American is suposedly entitled to all the luxeries wealthy people have. Food, clothing, and shelter is enough for pity's sake!.

Again really am wondering how much you know about the real world beyond your own enviorment .People do love having computers, big screen tv's , and nice cars that is for sure. But then again people also need food ,shelter,and insurance and it gets awful pricey .Especially if you have kids. Know way to many people living from paycheck to paycheck just providing the basics . Also although you don't hear about it much know manytoo who work at 2nd crap jobs not just for the money but to get health insurance.........................

[elliott20]

no, the IRS data is in fact pretty accurate as far as income taxes go. but that does not account for estate taxes, property, etc, etc. which is kind of the point of that entire article I linked. The point that article was trying to get across is that while the rich contributes far more in terms of monetary value, they contribute proportionately far less than a middle class earner.

While most middle class earners' entire wealth is often contained within their bank account and their income level, for the rich, there are usually far more at work here than just income tax. i.e. assets, property, real estate, corporate holdings, and other forms of securities. Let's take the most basic one, for example, tax shelters. You create a company, you make nearly everything you do a business expense
(and it's quite easy to do that too), and keep all your reciepts. Seeing as your "business expense" is going to be quite large, you get a huge deductable on your tax return.

The law only allows you to declare a deductable for several years if your company doesn't show a profit, but that's assuming you have a consistent corporate entity. So all you have to do is every several years, you declare your company a new entity and BAM, several more years of deductables.

Also, corporate tax rates are much more favorable than personal income tax. So should your company actually start making money, you probably can keep a lot more of it than just being a worker bee.

So right there, being someone with access to corporate entities already gives you a huge advantage. And this is like, one of the most BASIC forms of tax sheltering. A more savvy accountant can probably pump out 30 more ways to make this work even better.

As you can see, this system itself favors corporations, estates, and other entities that often are tied to the rich. And let's not kid ourselves here, an individual who puts in a 80 hour week at walmart is NOT going to be making as much as the financial analyst who just sits on a well balanced portfolio who works 20 hours a week.

despite what you might think, in America, working hard is not really the gateway to get ahead. Being financially savvy and being able to exploit all the legal loopholes is what gets you ahead.

[myron myron]

How does a system of progressive taxation whereby the tax rate increases as income increases (i.e., the more money you make, the higher the percentage taxed) "favor the rich"?

Why is progressive taxation fair?

Doesn't progressive taxation punish those who earn higher incomes?

Isn't progressive taxation a method of redistribution of income from the productive to the unproductive?

Doesn't progressive taxation create a disincentive to productivity?

[elliott20]

How does a system of progressive taxation whereby the tax rate increases as income increases (i.e., the more money you make, the higher the percentage taxed) "favor the rich"?

Why is progressive taxation fair?

Doesn't progressive taxation punish those who earn higher incomes?

Isn't progressive taxation a method of redistribution of income from the productive to the unproductive?

Doesn't progressive taxation create a disincentive to productivity?

The progessive taxation system is flawed, that much is true. However, my point is that it's got more to do with the fact that income tax is probably the only form they'll need to pay as there are ways to get around paying for other forms of taxes. i.e. estate, property, and corporate tax shelters are all commonly used tools to shield your income. Stocks, bonds, and other security options frequently do not get taxed nearly as much as your income tax, which is something that usually only the rich are going to be able to maintain. I'm pretty sure this has more to do with encouraging the financial markets and what not, but you see my point right?

Progressive taxation, to me, is just a really feeble attempt at trying to balance an advantage that already favors the higher income folks.

[myron myron]

[mogadishu]

What about people who do more harm than good to society in their jobs but are paid large incomes nonetheless?