Why do liberals want to punish hard work and success?

I'm not sure how many people consider $10 to be big money. Even so, one less person on the dole will pay for a lot of drug tests.

 

if you have 10,000,000 on welfare across the country, that's 100 million dollars in tests. maybe that's not a lot of money to you but to me it is.

 

Amen!! Dr. Warren explains a few things very concisely.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs"]Check It Out.[/ame]

 

Yeah, Its totally american to tax the rich for 50% of their profits so the unemployed can sit on their ass at home and get free handouts. OH WAIT... that sounds more like France. yuck...

 

Your view is extreme; it doesn't reflect reality with any verifiable accuracy.

 

My view is extreme? I'm extreme because I think we should have a fair, flat tax? are you a nutter?

 

The post he quoted did not reflect what you say in this post. And he's a nutter?

 

Sure it does; you're misreading. danboy objects to the notion that anyone should be taxed @ a 50% level, saying that a fair alternative is a flat tax at a lower rate across all income levels.

J-C called that extremist; dan objected to the characterization. As do I.

 

Considering that the average monthly welfare payment is $300, one person being kicked off pays for 30 more tests. If we exclude people who fail drug tests from food stamps as well, it pushes the total closer to 100 tests paid for by each person who fails. If we push the exclusion to a full year, that is 1200 tests paid for by each person who fails.

 

Somehow I must have missed where dan mentioned flat tax.

I don't think a flat tax is fair and certainly not extremist, but then neither is income tax, the way it is now.

 

HTH.

And I do think that levying 50% tax on anything is extremist - but I also cede that if you're conditioned to somehow believe that's perfectly acceptable, the word "extremist" becomes moot to you.

Of course, anyone can be conditioned to accept anything, if the conditioning is strong enough, and goes on long enough.

 

I was being sarcastic... guess I needed to find and use those rolleyes.

I was for a flat tax years ago when my business was making alot of money but now that I am barely able to stay in business and it is ONLY the tax deductions which allow me to not have more layoffs while paying my bills and keeping my home.

If we went to a flat tax of anything more than 6-7% or so, I'd have to immediately close my business and go on the government dole along with all my employees.

 

Imagine how you'd have insulated yourself against hard times if the flat tax had continued.

Further: imagine how all your customers would have been able to insulate themselves in like kind...and continue to patronize your business, whereas the economic conditions caused by a lack of a flat tax now prevent it.

Terribly faulty logic; I hope I illustrated how well enough for you.

 

Conservative or not.. we won't fix the economy on the backs of the working poor or newly unemployed.

Or are you of the opinion that people who have been gainfully employed for 10, 20, 40 years have suddenly become deadbeats?

The middle class is shrinking for lack of decent paying jobs.. No one can make their house payments or feed their children once they have exhausted their 401K.

The solution lies with the idiot Congress who are too lazy to institute tax reform and incentives to repatriate offshore profits .. That would increase R&D, retooling, innovation and manufacturing.

This is NOT a partisan issue.. and no thinking Conservative should make light of it and blame their neighbors.

Remember.. that NO democratic form of government survives without a middle class and a free press.

 

LMAO you really think the extra wealthy dont use roads, cops, rule of law, airspace, waterways, on and on and on... the value of governmental resources an uber wealthy person uses in one day is worth more than a welfare recipient uses in a year (including their welfare).

 

Even capitalism?

 

Looking back it was only because of deductions available to businesses like mine that allowed me to use some of my profit to expand my business and hire more people rather than take it and stick it in some cayman island money market for my own hard times.

As for your faulty logic comment, sorry but you are full of it as you don't have any idea about my business. After deductions, I end up paying a tax rate of around 4% which immediately goes to pay my previous years real estate taxes on my home and business. If my tax rate rose to 7%, either my business or home would have to go first.

IMO, in the future, until you are in my shoes, you need to keep your faulty logic comments to yourself otherwise potentially look unintelligently snarky once again.

 

I was thinking about your business, its deductions and taxes. Right now there are tons of deductions, but fairly high taxes. What is your actual, overall tax rate? It probably is a bit higher than 7%, assuming you are turning enough profit to actually live off of.

Most "flat" tax proposals I've seen actually are a two-bracket system. People would pay zero tax on a certain amount - usually enough for a family to live off of, something around $25,000. Everything above that would be taxed at around 12%-15%. So, if you earned about $50,000 your overall tax rate would be about 6%-7%.

I figure something like this would greatly simplify the system and would be a reasonably fair way to set up the system.

 

Seems very good to me also. Would really help to keep things simple too. When it gets to the point that people have to hire experts to do their taxes, you know there is a problem!

 

The reason something like that does not happen (which I think even the libs and cons here would agree to) is politicians run and more importantly FUNDRAISE on keeping ___________ deduction on the books, cause it is about to expire in year ________. So send me some money company interested in preserving _____________ deduction so I can continue fighting for you.

 

So now...you're changing your story. Convenient?

What happened to your stolid defense of a flat tax?

As opposed to your completely honest and forthright comments here.

 

The beauty of capitalism is that it takes very little to accept - and a whole lot to deny.

Not that a whole lot hasn't been thrown your way, mind you...

 

it won't work; test costs vary from state to state; In New York, drug testing averages $42 per person. So your $10 per person theory goes out the window.

Many of those kicked off of welfare will inevitably turn to crime in order to survive and of course most of them will be caught and prosecuted (more added costs to the taxpayers) and inevitably incarcerated (more additional costs to the taxpayers). That's why I don't think your idea has much steam to it; most likely the politicians don't either.

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

 

Stop with the nonsense and PROVE what you're saying here.

 

Wow; what EMPTY rhetoric that was.