Drewhop Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 I think the government should do what Roosevelt did in the 30's (to pull us out of a depression), anyone who wants to work, give them a job. Even if its the most bullshit job on earth, at least your earning money. For those who don't want to work, well then they don't need government assistance. I know it would be hard to employ that many people but I'm sure something can be found for them to do, like picking up trash on the side of the road or something. Make them do the jobs nobody else wants to do and maybe it will motivate them to find another job where they don't have to depend on the government to pay them. Another plus to this idea would be that everyone (who took the job) would have to pay taxes, because its work, not a handout. So, in my opinion, America needs to quit being so lazy. I understand the purpose of welfare and all (it was to help those in need to get back on their feet, not as a handout for leeches of society), but it has been abused for far too long now. Great idea, except.................who is going to pay them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Bastard Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 Great idea, except.................who is going to pay them? It would be the government as I don't see any way of weening every man, woman, and child off the government's tit. At least this way they would be earning it rather than just getting money for nothing, and having to pay taxes they would still (in a way I guess) be contributing to their own wages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 FLAT TAX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirks5oh Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 My question- to those who think the top 10% should not e taxed any more- 1)What do you think they really pay now-less write offs, not including fringe benefits, not including money that goes untaxed into offshore account? 2) What do you think is a “fair” tax amount for the top 10%? i have no write offs, no business write offs. no fringe benefits, no offshore accounts. every year i claim zero deductions, so the max is taken out. and i still owe mid 5 figures at the end of the year. its fucked up. i recommend a fixed percentage tax to be paid by everyone---and even that is not necessarily fair. 25% of $10k-----$2,500 taxes 25% of $100k----$25,000 taxes 25% of $1M------$250,000 taxes taxes are like paying for a service (police/fire/gov't/mail/etc)---i wouldn't pay more for someone to come out and cut my grass compared to someone who made less money than me, so why should i pay more for public services?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 I think the government should do what Roosevelt did in the 30's (to pull us out of a depression), anyone who wants to work, give them a job. Even if its the most bullshit job on earth, at least your earning money. For those who don't want to work, well then they don't need government assistance. I know it would be hard to employ that many people but I'm sure something can be found for them to do, like picking up trash on the side of the road or something. Make them do the jobs nobody else wants to do and maybe it will motivate them to find another job where they don't have to depend on the government to pay them. Another plus to this idea would be that everyone (who took the job) would have to pay taxes, because its work, not a handout. So, in my opinion, America needs to quit being so lazy. I understand the purpose of welfare and all (it was to help those in need to get back on their feet, not as a handout for leeches of society), but it has been abused for far too long now. FDR is quite possibly IMO the worst president in History... When many see him as the "greatest"... He was worse EASILY worse then Obama in a relative sense. Yes he got us out of the "great depression" and he was mr. jingoism... However he was a dictator I mean socialist idealist whom started a lot of shit to roll down hill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coltboostin Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 I think what would be "fair" is for everyone to be taxed at the same rate. That would free up income for people to donate to charities if they choose to do so and I believe that people would if they had the ability. This would also enable people to donate to charities that actually help people and not donate to charities that just hand out money to make you feel better. As it stands now really a tax is just a cut of your pay that the government is taking in order to give it to the charities that they choose. . ?? Schools are Charities? Law Enforcement Local/State/Fed is a Charity? Our Military is a Charity? That’s a pretty whacky way to look at things. As for a "par" tax rate-disposable income drives an economy. You want more consumers with more buying power. The minimum wage less 40% is not even a living wage. On the other end, someone with 10 million in income can only consume so much. 170 Families with 60k in income can consume VASLTY more than one Family with 10 Million. That is why the top 10% are tax, and should be taxed more. I think the government should do what Roosevelt did in the 30's (to pull us out of a depression), anyone who wants to work, give them a job. Even if its the most bullshit job on earth, at least your earning money. For those who don't want to work, well then they don't need government assistance. . I like that, but Republican whiners will say that’s too close to socialism, Welfare?? BAD People actually WORKING for a paycheck? BAD Solution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 isnt that essentially what Kaisich just implemtened? (hes a republican btw) Volunteer work for 20 hours to get food stamps? Sounds fair to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coltboostin Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 isnt that essentially what Kaisich just implemtened? (hes a republican btw) Volunteer work for 20 hours to get food stamps? Sounds fair to me Is this 100% in play? Sounds great to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buelliganx1 Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 ?? Schools are Charities? Law Enforcement Local/State/Fed is a Charity? Our Military is a Charity? That’s a pretty whacky way to look at things. Well I am a mechanic not an economist otherwise I would be on Columbus economics.com duh I've said it before and I'll say it again none of the ideas created in this site will ever be tried in the real world so arguing about it on here is as useful as arguing who should have won the 1980 Superbowl or who will win it in 2020. In other words a complete waist of time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 Is this 100% in play? Sounds great to me! Im to lazy to type it all out, so heres the article.. looks like January first. Gov. John Kasich’s administration will limit food stamps for more than 130,000 adults in all but a few economically depressed areas starting Jan. 1. To qualify for benefits, able-bodied adults without children will be required to spend at least 20 hours a week working, training for a job, volunteering or performing a similar type of activity unless they live in one of 16 counties exempt because of high unemployment. The requirements begin next month; however, those failing to meet them would not lose benefits until Jan. 1. “It’s important that we provide more than just a monetary benefit, that we provide job training, an additional level of support that helps put (food-stamp recipients) on a path toward a career and out of poverty,” said Ben Johnson, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. For years, Ohio has taken advantage of a federal waiver exempting food-stamps recipients from the work requirements that Kasich championed while U.S. House Budget Committee chairman during the mid-1990s. Kasich and former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Heath, co-sponsored an amendment requiring able-bodied recipients without dependents to work that was included in sweeping welfare-reform legislation adopted in 1996. “The governor believes in a work requirement,” Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols said yesterday. “But when the economy is bad and people are hurting, the waiver can be helpful. Now, fortunately, Ohio’s economy is improving.” More than 1.8 million Ohioans receive food stamps, with the average individual benefit about $132 a month. Of them, an estimated 134,000 adults in 72 Ohio counties will be subject to the work requirements, including 15,000 in Franklin County. They are ages 18 to 50, without children under 18, and deemed to be physically and mentally able to participate, Johnson said. County officials who administer public assistance and advocates for the poor predict the requirement will take food stamps away from thousands of Ohioans. “The rolls will go down because of this. Some people will leave because of the requirement, and some won’t be able to meet it. It will be similar to what we saw with (welfare) rolls,” said Joel Potts, executive director of the Ohio Job and Family Services Directors’ Association. More than 100,000 Ohioans have lost cash assistance since the beginning of 2011 as part of the federal crackdown on work requirements. “We don’t have nearly enough places for 15,000 people” to work, said Lance Porter, spokesman for the Franklin County Department of Job and Family Services. Many of the “able-bodied” food-stamp recipients in the Columbus area have disabilities and are seeking Supplemental Social Security, an application process that can take months, even years. “We don’t oppose the requirement, but most of these people have no other income than food stamps. Getting them transportation and other help to participate in work activities costs money,” said Jack Frech, director of the Athens County Department of Job and Family Services. “We’ll have 1,000 people subject to this requirement and there is no way we will have work sites for them. Every work site we have is already filled up by people working for cash assistance.” The announcement comes the same week as a federal report showing hunger persists in Ohio despite signs of economic improvement. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1 in 6 Ohio families faced hunger last year, the 10th highest rate in the nation. And over the past decade, the percentage of families forced to skip meals or cut back on what they eat has grown 6.3 percentage points, higher than in all but two other states. Ohio officials learned they would continue to qualify for a federal waiver of the work requirement because the recession made jobs scarce, but the Kasich administration wants to exempt only those in 16 Ohio counties where the two-year average unemployment rate was more than 120 percent of the national rate, Johnson said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 The minimum wage is not even a living wage Fixed. Was having this discussion in CB today. I actually like the Volunteer work for Food stamps policy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got-Boost? Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 My question- to those who think the top 10% should not e taxed any more- 1)What do you think they really pay now-less write offs, not including fringe benefits, not including money that goes untaxed into offshore account? 2) What do you think is a “fair” tax amount for the top 10%? The problem with this is, everyone is okay with more taxes as long as THEY aren't the ones having to pay it. When you start talking about increasing everyones taxes suddenly it's a problem and not okay. Do I think they have extra to pay sure, who doesn't at that income level but if you were making that much you'd think it's BS. Some in the lower incomes think that if they work harder the government is just going to take more so what's the point. Start showing more incentive for people to work instead of more handouts by those less/not willing. Same thing with the unemployment extension that Obama passed a while back. I heard from several people that they could stay home and collect almost the same amount rather than go to work full time at a crummy job. Guess what, that kept people from going back to work because they didn't see the point, work and little pay or stay home and little pay for nothing... The real issue with taxes is the government has a blank checkbook. Start cutting programs and insane spending on junk that is wasted before you start rasing taxes. Once you have got the budget inline, THEN look at what needs to be changed on taxes. They could probably reduce taxes if they really fixed the problem.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 The real issue with taxes is the government has a blank checkbook. Start cutting programs and insane spending on junk that is wasted before you start rasing taxes. Once you have got the budget inline, THEN look at what needs to be changed on taxes. They could probably reduce taxes if they really fixed the problem.. Exactly. It's the leaky bucket that needs replaced and or fixed. The solution isn't pouring more tax money into it. People need to be accoutable too. Don't work or train then you don't get shit. /period. We're way too accommodating and caring for the bottom end is continuing to eat away at the middle class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coltboostin Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 The problem with this is, everyone is okay with more taxes as long as THEY aren't the ones having to pay it. When you start talking about increasing everyones taxes suddenly it's a problem and not okay. Do I think they have extra to pay sure, who doesn't at that income level but if you were making that much you'd think it's BS. The real issue with taxes is the government has a blank checkbook. Start cutting programs and insane spending on junk that is wasted before you start rasing taxes. Once you have got the budget inline, THEN look at what needs to be changed on taxes. They could probably reduce taxes if they really fixed the problem.. I agree 100%-but how can we ask form program change not being an elected official? They do what they want basically unchecked by the people that elected them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verse Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 I heard from several people that they could stay home and collect almost the same amount rather than go to work full time at a crummy job. Guess what, that kept people from going back to work because they didn't see the point, work and little pay or stay home and little pay for nothing... This is true. I was on unemployment, and honestly when you factored in time/money of commuting and childcare while I worked, I was basically ending up with the same money on unemployment that I was when I was working. Difference is, I eventually got annoyed of sitting around and doing nothing after a few months, but a lot of the jobs I looked at were worthless. I made more on unemployment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuicedH22 Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Cliffs: Shit is broken and almost all of CR falls in the bottom 7% of America, including myself and family. uhhhh.... Not sure how you figure? If you're talking 7% of income percentile... that would mean you think that the avg CR member makes less than $8k per year? Not sure if this has been brought up... dont want to read the bickering in all of this thread.... I will say, I have agreement on some thoughts... and I do think the wealthy need higher tax rates, but disagree with where that line is drawn on who pays more... According to those charts I am RICH in 'murica... and I certainly would consider myself middle class based on lifestyle... and based on that agree with your statement that I am closer with 'low-income' than one would believe, or more to actuality, the "middle-class" they label is more to being "rich" than they think... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuicedH22 Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 i have no write offs, no business write offs. no fringe benefits, no offshore accounts. every year i claim zero deductions, so the max is taken out. and i still owe mid 5 figures at the end of the year. its fucked up. Agree completely... my combined household income puts me just under being in the "top 10%" (amazing how low that income is IMO)... I am not rich, by any means.... I claim zero, have no special sources of income, etc... I claim zero, paying the max amount in taxes (about 30% per paycheck), and I get to then pay an extra $3,000-4,000 as a bill every spring... You talk about making me pay more? Here's a reality of how extravagant my life is: No cable TV take our 2 kids to a babysitter to afford daycare eat out for food about once every other week Modes house in a modest cookie cutter neighborhood in a middleclass town.. yea I'm the rich evil guy that needs to pay my share, LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewtoys Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Agree completely... my combined household income puts me just under being in the "top 10%" (amazing how low that income is IMO)... I am not rich, by any means.... I claim zero, have no special sources of income, etc... I claim zero, paying the max amount in taxes (about 30% per paycheck), and I get to then pay an extra $3,000-4,000 as a bill every spring... You talk about making me pay more? Here's a reality of how extravagant my life is: No cable TV take our 2 kids to a babysitter to afford daycare eat out for food about once every other week Modes house in a modest cookie cutter neighborhood in a middleclass town.. yea I'm the rich evil guy that needs to pay my share, LOL Pshh same story here. I RENT a modest three story town home, I also have no cable. (Don't watch tv) donate over 10k+ each year, which I don't write off. Not sure if you can. And still should be coughing up over 10k at the end of the year. Wild! I would also consider myself far from rich too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coltboostin Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 This is true. I was on unemployment, and honestly when you factored in time/money of commuting and childcare while I worked, I was basically ending up with the same money on unemployment that I was when I was working. Difference is, I eventually got annoyed of sitting around and doing nothing after a few months, but a lot of the jobs I looked at were worthless. I made more on unemployment. You PAID INTO unemployment. I consider that far more admireable than welfare. Agree completely... my combined household income puts me just under being in the "top 10%" (amazing how low that income is IMO)... I am not rich, by any means.... I claim zero, have no special sources of income, etc... I claim zero, paying the max amount in taxes (about 30% per paycheck), and I get to then pay an extra $3,000-4,000 as a bill every spring... You talk about making me pay more? Here's a reality of how extravagant my life is: No cable TV take our 2 kids to a babysitter to afford daycare eat out for food about once every other week Modes house in a modest cookie cutter neighborhood in a middleclass town.. yea I'm the rich evil guy that needs to pay my share, LOL You have 2 kids, withhold 30%, and you still owe?? You Must be 1099, PIAD as fuck, or have a horrible tax guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustlestiltskin Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 You PAID INTO unemployment. I consider that far more admireable than welfare. You have 2 kids, withhold 30%, and you still owe?? You Must be 1099, PIAD as fuck, or have a horrible tax guy. But you're a manlet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHIEF Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 You PAID INTO unemployment. I consider that far more admireable than welfare. You have 2 kids, withhold 30%, and you still owe?? You Must be 1099, PIAD as fuck, or have a horrible tax guy. While I generally dont agree with colt, he's right. Thing is verse is that some of that is a write off as far as "commuting" as long as that 1 person qualifies (you). That's free money on top of the tax money (she) you were getting. Based on taxable pay. No 30% etc, applies to you on that "income" on the books that show 'income'. Mileage or residential parent is a 1/3 write off parent or not. This includes yes bf's outside of state or fed assistance not dependent on income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHIEF Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 I'm not the smartest, we need a "hey you wanna work taxable agreement" between generations/take care of generations/and down the line. If CR knewn the half of my family, they'd understand. And I'm not even military lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHIEF Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 Hell I do concrete.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuicedH22 Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 You PAID INTO unemployment. I consider that far more admireable than welfare. You have 2 kids, withhold 30%, and you still owe?? You Must be 1099, PIAD as fuck, or have a horrible tax guy. Nope... This is actually fairly common for dual income households where both are equivalent ("higher") earners... Tax rates are based on single incomes... When you have two similar incomes, the combined income is taxed at a lower rate individually than it would be for the same total income of a single earner at that rate... So that difference is owed to Uncle Sam. The "marriage penalty"... IE: if my wife and I pay 30% in taxes on our individual pay checks... If those paychecks were from a single earner, it would have been 35%... So we owe that 5% difference because of the way tax laws are set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 Nope... This is actually fairly common for dual income households where both are equivalent ("higher") earners... Agree. Wife and I when she was working (she was self employed) were pretty close income levels and with Zero deductions on my end and her paying quarterly based on previous year and a little extra account for her earning more, we often still owed. Really all depends on what you make as a household. I agree with Kirk's statement earlier, that people's opinions on household income vary greatly. What one person considers doing well may be peanuts to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.