May I suggest you claim us lefties as charity?

I guess it's a matter of perceived waste. I mean there's a certain amount of waste in any process that's unavoidable. In my estimation the amount that's wasted is within reasonable limits and so I have no problem with it. If in your estimation more is wasted than spent effectively then you'll be pissed.

I personally believe that there are more people legitimately helped than there are people that cheat the system and so I feel my taxes *do* provide a benefit to others and I don't begrudge that. But there's also a matter of feeling that I have enough left for myself. Like I said I can afford a roof over my head and food on my table and I can afford to buy a Chevy every 5 or 10 years or so for both me and my wife. If the amount of taxes taken didn't leave me enough to support me and mine then I would feel differently about it. But if by paying taxes I can't afford a new Jaguar every year then that's just too bad.

I don't feel any sympathy for someone making way more than any normal person needs to get by. Whether they pay 15% capital gains or 50% capital gains won't make the difference between putting a roof over their heads or food on their table. We're talking ostentatious consumption. Let them pay a 100% luxury tax on their new yacht or not buy their wife a diamond necklace this year. But I do feel bad for people that can't put food on their table and a roof over their head.

I think he already is.

 

First, they didn't have the national one available at the time.

 

Now...talk about cherry picking..

Let's look at this statement.

Who decides how much someone "needs"?

Secondly, when someone buys a yacht aren't they spreading their wealth? Isn't that what we want? Why is it better for the government to decide where that wealth is spread?

Aren't you the least bit curious to know why someone is strugglign to put food on the table (and really, please show us where these starving Americans are hiding, maybe the obese poor people in the US are getting in the way?)?  Aren't you interested in looking into why someone is poor before you decide to feel sorry for them?

My consumption is often quite conspicuous.  I'm building an insane house.  But in doing so, I'm employing a lot of people to build it. Local workers who are paid well.  To get the money to be so conspicuous, I worked very hard and in the progress created a lot of other jobs.  I would not have worked hard and created those jobs if there was no conspicuous reward for doing so.

No, not really. The fact that they're struggling for the most basic of necessities when others have so much that are luxuries by any stretch of the imagination is sufficient for me.

Creating jobs is admirable. Working hard is admirable. I’m sure you deserve every luxury that you have or ever will have. No one here doubts this. But on the other hand there’s no tax that will be levied that will stop you from completing your house, or stop you from being as conspicuous in your consumption as you wish. They only possible effect is that maybe (and only just maybe) it might take you just a little bit longer to save up for that yacht.

My point is that increasing taxes inconveniences many so that a tremendous difference can be made in the lives of a few that really need the help. This is what I don’t begrudge.

I asked this question before but no one hazarded as response. There’s an implicit assumption that prevades every political thread on this site and that is that if someone is poor it's because they're lazy, or stupid or more likely, both. Another common theme is the assumption that in some way or another it's a matter of choice if a person is poor. This is totally anathema to my own personal belief system based on 56 years of living and I just wonder how someone comes to believe this way. I guess this implies that you believe that if someone has *any* job even a minimum wage McJob that they’re not poor. In my experience that’s not the case, most poor are “working poor” that indeed work quite hard and yet get nowhere.

I find the >$200k stat particularly interesting given that's the only group he's promised to raise taxes on. I think your worry about an "everyone for himself" society can be dialed back.

Clearly, some of the lower income people are voting their wallets, but the lower brackets are also obviously skewed left a bit by studens, minorities, and liberal idealists.

But, to really take a swing at your point, the classically liberal stance on the free market being the only true form of justice is just a belief. The market, one must admit, is a survival-of-the-fittest model where an imbalance of power is seen as desirable. Monopoly in your segment, killing your competition, is the ultimate goal of a capitalist. As a society, we have to reconcile our two warring human desires: nurturing and domination. The extreme of nurturing, communism, is also poor alternative. Maybe the answer is somewhere in between.

MF I'll agree with this in part, but I think your reasoning is to simplistic. People stay poor for many reasons. Some are stupid or at least feel they are not smart enough to do better for what ever reason. Some are afraid or too "comfortable" where their at to improve their skill set (I went to college myself at 42 years of age). Some people are afraid to move to where jobs are or live in a place where there is only one game in town. And finally there are poor people that are happy with their situation, maybe that's the way it's always been and seems normal. Some may not know what course of action to take. It goes on and on. Accumulating wealth takes time and a lot of work. If it were easy or a simple choice everyone would be wealthy.

I think you'd agree that pulling yourself up takes, courage, commitment, and a bit of effort on the persons part. Some folks just don't have these qualities for whatever reason and throwing money at them likely won't help either.

Perhaps. I'll concede every one of your points but one and that is that I do not believe that there is a single poor person that is happy with their situation. Otherwise I'm sure there are some percentage of the "poor" that fall into the other categories that you mention. I'm even sure there are some that fall into the fraud category as well. But even the stupid don't deserve to starve to death. Oh yeah, I forget, there are no starving poor, only obese poor that do nothing but make a living off the taxpayer dollar, but I don't buy this premise either.

In any case I stand by my statement which is that I don't begrudge the taxes I currently pay and I won't mind if my taxes need to increase because I do believe that some portion of the increase goes to people that need, deserve and benefit from the help.

I don't agree with where a large portion of my tax dollar goes and a far greater portion of my tax dollar goes to pay for a war of which I don't approve than could ever possibly be fraudently taken by the aforementioned obese poor but I still pay all of my taxes, even portions I think are being wasted. You and I just disagree on which portions we feel are being wasted.

50-75 too (but only a plurality).

 

 Some poor lady thought Obama was going to pay her mortgage and fill her gastank. Poor deluded creature.

It's more than implicit, I think Brad explicitely stated that several places in other threads!

While I agree with some of your points (it's not always a matter of choice about whether you're poor), I disagree with how you categorise poor. If someone is earning $200k a year, to me that is rich, regardless of their wealth, because of the level of consumption that they can afford with such an income. You could go through life with almost no wealth, yet living in luxury, by spending all of a massive income every year. To me that is rich, not poor. If they then lost their job and had no income, then and only then would they become poor - up until that point they would still be rich to me.

 

In terms of helping the poor though, I do think it's important to look at why the person is poor. I'm quite happy with some of my taxes going to help people who are poor to afford basic necessities, but only if they are doing everything they can do to survive - so for example I wouldn't be happy with giving a heavy smoking alcoholic with a drug addiction money if the reason they're poor is because all their money goes on the aforementioned items. However I would be happy with giving a single parent money if they are caring after young children, or working part-time (once their children are at a school age) and not able to make ends meet. Similarly I'd be ok to some extent with the government giving money to people who are unemployed if they have no assets and can't survive without it, but only providing they are actively looking for a new job, and I'd want any support to be removed the moment they turn down a job offer. In other words, if you're working hard, I'd be ok with the government using taxes to ensure you can survive, but if you're being lazy or wasting your money, I wouldn't.

Also although I do think there is an issue with wealth being passed down (leading to someone who could be lazy and stupid earning far more than someone who isn't), against that you have the point that the money will have been earnt at some point by someone, who no doubt will have worked hard for it, and since it's their money, why can't they spend it as they wish (by say giving it to their children)?

You do have the issue though that policies which take from the rich and give to the poor are likely to have a negative impact on total income. You mentioned that an increase in tax wouldn't affect Brads spending plans (re say yaughts), but would simply delay when he could buy them, but they might well - an increase in taxes might make Brad decide to take a bit more time off as leisure (since it's less expensive than it was under the lower tax regime), and/or not invest in that risky project that would have been expected to be worthwhile before, but is no longer looking worth it, both of which would have negative impacts on employment, income, spending, etc.; Of course there is an argument that increasing taxes on some of the rich could lead to them working even more, but I'll save that for another day (since it's a bit more of a cornercase scenario)

Oh, yeah, many times without ever admitting that the choices people make are thrust on them by their ability or lack thereof while  the splendidly gifted like Brad and Barack are presented with high grade choices.

(in response to "aren't you curious why they're poor?"

 

 

And this is precisely why I don't like the system where people who don't care why someone's poor gets to decide how much I pay to take care of them.

If you don't care why they're struggling, why don't you stand up and start giving out most of your income to them in charitable donations?

Most people who are chronically poor are either lazy, stupid, or disabled.  

Now, how do I know this? Because the demographics of who are poor in the United States has been endlessly studied, documented, and researched.  It also helps that I grew up poor so I got to see first hand how stupid and lazy most of them are.

If you are able-bodied, you can avoid being poor by following these easy steps:

1. Finish high school.

2. Don't take drugs

3. Don't have children until at least 21.

That's it.  If you follow those 3 things, the odds of being poor go down massively.  Nearly all the able-bodied poor have failed to adhere to those 3 things.

But, like one person bleeding heart in this thread said, they don't care why they're poor. We're a rich country and to show how compassionate they are, they want me to pay more in taxes.

Having babies, taking drugs, and dropping out of highschool are not choices "thrust" upon them as stevendedalus.  The problem with the left is that they are incurious as to what actually causes society's problems and are more interested in feeling good about themselves by having the correct political beliefs.

They definitely are in very poor neighborhoods; at early childhood they, except for the very gift, are not open to these choices. It's not a question of liberals feeling good but to pressure those in power to work positively in easing conditions in horrible locales. May I say?--more generous "community organizing."

Back to the original thought....when looking at total #'s of Obama voters in Ohio...he received less than Kerry did in 2004.  If the Republicans woulda come out in the same numbers this election they woulda got the state.

Also the youth vote everyone talked about, tied the 65 and older vote for smallest turnout of total voters.

Sad.

You have a point and I have to agree. I said that I considered myself to be poor even with a $170K income on the basis that if I lost my job tomorrow and could never work again then I could survive for a few years but inevitably I would end up destitute. Your point is that at least while I'm making such a high income that I can't be considered poor and technically you're correct.

However I still prefer to consider myself poor because by doing so I don't waste my income in a life of conspicuous luxury that I really can't afford but instead save pretty much every penny that I can in the hope (and I have to stress that it's only a hope that is by no means guaranteed) that at some point before my working life is over that I will achieve financial independence. So although I could afford far better, I buy (for cash, paying interest is a sin) a new Chevy Impala (I believe Americans should buy American cars) for myself and my wife every ten years or so whether we really need it or not. I also don't own an LCD or plasma TV, the 15 year old CRT is sufficient for my needs, nor do I own a cell phone and I'm damn proud of it.

If I looked at my $170K income and said, gee I'm rich, then I'd be tempted to spend it. Income is not wealth nor is it financial security. The only thing that provides financial security is to have enough money so that you could live reasonably off the interest with enough cushion to allow you to continue to save at least minimally. Never touch the principle. Have you priced out nursing homes, long term care insurance or medical insurance lately? How about just the annual cost of life insurance or long term disability insurance for a 56 year old that has had a heart attack. If you have then you wouldn't be surprised how quickly a lifetime of earning can be dissipated. If you haven't then you probably should. It’s sobering, the last quote I got for LTD was $18K per year for a limited benefit, even making $170K per year that’s a bit beyond my means.

You forgot one more important step.

4. Never get old.

From the attitudes that I've seen expressed here I would have to assume that Social Security is viewed as big an "entitlement", if not bigger, than welfare. I hope that assumption isn't correct, but in any case the 70 year old widow trying to scrape by on Social Security isn't poor?

Many people finished high school, didn't take drugs and didn't have children before 21 but merely didn't earn enough throughout their life to have saved at least $1 million dollars of after tax savings so as to be able to support themselves on the $40K in interest the million would earn. $40K per year isn't much but it's enough to be reasonably comfortable baring an extended nursing home stay in many parts of the country. Clearly anyone that lived and earned their money in the Northeast or California or other high cost of living area of the country would be forced to move to a lower cost of living locale but that's a given.

So anyway with my PhD in Electrical Engineering from MIT and having been steadily employed for 29 years in what most would consider a highly paid job I'm about halfway to my goal of $1 million of after tax savings (actually my real goal is $2 million just to have a bit of a cushion) and assuming that I can continue to stay steadily employed for another ten years I have every reasonable expectation of reaching financial security. And although there are those that are better off than I am, there are *many* that aren't. I don't begrudge people who are better off than I am their riches but I do wonder that if I will probably only barely be able to make it to financial security then how many are there, only slightly less lucky than I, that won't ever be financially secure.

I really wonder how many folks that agree with the prevalent attitudes expressed here now will do so when it comes time for them to retire. It's easy to feel that you're invulnerable when you're young (or even just not yet old) and that you'll always be healthy, but if you haven't prepared for the time that you're not then you may easily find yourself as poor as those for which some here express so much hate.

Do you know what % of the American elderly population lives in poverty? TINY.

Age is not causing people to be poor. It's the 3 things I mentioned.  That's why I said it's so easy to avoid poverty in general.

You would think that many would understand this, but very few do.  That is why lottery winners end up in the dumps more often than not.

No, that is the ant and the grasshopper.  There are many ants out there, but more than enough grasshoppers.  That old cliche - "you dont plan to fail, you fail to plan" affects everyone if they do not heed it.

I guess it's dependent on where you get your data, what you consider poor and what you consider tiny. You can find a wide range of numbers on the net that vary in relationship to the particular prejudices held by that site but it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 12% which I don't consider tiny.

However the real issue is that it's apparent that the only people considered poor on this site are those that live below the official "poverty" line. That's where we disagree. I believe that understates the problem so dramatically as to be ludicrous. By the 2008 definition of poverty a single person making $10,500 per year or a family of four making $21,300 per year is *not* poor. In my mind people earning so little are indeed desperately poor.

So by the official definition you're correct. Sure it's easy to avoid poverty, all you need to do is to get a minimum wage job. The hard part is living on such a small income. That's what's meant by "working poor".

Certainly there are those that have the means but not the forethought to prepare and for those your ant and grasshopper analogy is appropriate. However explain to me how someone living paycheck to paycheck on a minimum wage job which at next years rate of $7.25 per hour comes out to $14,500 per year (which by the official poverty guideline is sufficient for a family of two to *not* be considered poor) is able to be an ant and save any noticeable amount.

Look, like I said I'm reasonably sure that I will achieve financial independence. I'm also sure that some here have already achieved it and that many that haven't already yet will. But there are also those here that spout these same beliefs now that are essentially living from paycheck to paycheck that will find out how wrong they were the hard way. That is not something I wish on anyone.

Show me that person who worked 50years that way. The sad fact is that the person does not exist.  It is a bad strawman.

I earned $1.62 when I first got a paycheck job.  I make more than that now.

A pretty bold statement, given how many million people there are in the US. You see, you'll need to prove that that isn't the case for every single person. Fratz just needs to find a single one to disprove you! On balance, I'm prepared to believe that there is at least one person out there who has worked as much as they've been able, with an average minimum wage income per year (i.e. including periods of unemployment if they lost their job and had no income for a while while they tried finding another job).

 

What if I get an illness which soaks up all my money? Does that mean medical insurance should be included on there? But doesn't that in turn involve me paying more for something than I'd expect to get out of it, and hence not be that clever? What about if I got the insurance, and thought it covered x scenario, but it didn't, and the same situation arose?

What if instead I get robbed just as I retire, and lose all of my assets. I might be able to get a bit back (e.g. if it's sitting in a bank account and protected by relevant laws), but what about the rest - do I need to have insurance for all of that too?

In fact do I need to make sure I have insurance for every conceivable event, no matter how unlikely, that might result in becoming poor for a prolonged period of time?

 

As for the 'don't have children until at least 21', are you promoting abstinence for under21s, or abortion? Anything else and there's a chance of having a child. Meanwhile even if that is what you're proposing, it still wouldn't make it stupid by default - as with any decision you should consider whether the rewards justify the risks. It's not stupid to make a decision that could result in you becoming chronically poor if there's a very high chance that it wouldn't, and would be of great benefit to you.

 

And what of the people who don't fall under the "most" category, should they just be abandoned, ignored, left to suffer/die?

If you'd bothered to read this and other threads on this topic, you'd know he has said repeatedly, 'No.'

LOL. I made $1.25 an hour in 1976 and like most poor people I lived with my parents. Of course being 14 years old had a lot to do with it at the time. I often worked 15 hour days for a large cabbage grower (child labor laws be damned) I was happy to be earning. In 1984, I was head of a family of four, my yearly income that year $10,666.00. I had cable TV, phone, my car was 3 years old (bought it new) and paid off, and I rented. My wife didn't work. All the liberals on here can cry me a river, their what if's and poor that's make me ill (and it's not covered in my health insurance either). Nobody gave me a damn thing, nor did I ask for anything. I never had to do anything more than my personal best and do an honest days work. You know what it isn't that hard to do. Here's my advice to them, take one of those poor slackers into your home and see how long you can put up with them, while you're feeding and clothing them. Then in a month or two e-mail me from work and tell me what a terrible tragedy that poor misunderstood person is going through as he sits in your favorite chair, scratching his nuts and drinking your beer, watching The View..