Hand-Outs For The Rich Are Ok But Handouts For The Needy Aren't?

What percentage of the rich's income do they pay for survival vs the percentage that the bottom 50% spend on survival?
When you add survival to taxes and count that as a percentage and both are equal it's equal until then the rich need to pay more in taxes.

 

No I wouldn't. Government action throws the dollar out there. Market forces control how much the dollar is actually worth.
Exception, if the government throws too many dollars out there they devalue their own currency.
So basically it's supply and demand.

 

I really don't understand why we are talking about this in this thread or why it matters within the context of this thread.

 

this country will not get any better until any politician stands up and cuts entitement programs.

 

I'm saying that the lower 50% are not paying their fair share. And, in many cases, they are being paid to live here. Everyone who enjoys the protections and services of the government should pay something for them. The rich pay far more than necessary to provide constitutional government.

 

Rediculous. Survival by whoms definition? I bet the vast majority of these survivalist have cars, tv's, refridgerators, cell phones, air conditioners, hot water, cable, smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. Surviving? Give me a break.

 

I believe RICH should pay for my foods because I'm POOR.
I believe RICH should pay for my education because I'm POOR.
I believe RICH should pay for my healthcare because I'm POOR.
I believe RICH should pay for my student loan because I'm POOR.
I believe RICH should subsidize my housing because I'm POOR.

Progressive liberals/socialists on this board never get tired with their "Robin Hood" propaganda.

 

Read above post. Is there anything you DO NOT understand?

 

Meta Strip out the Social security and medicare medicaid taxes that the poor will recoup in total and the rich won't ever see a dime of and then then look at the numbers...

 

So you believe the tax code should be based on net worth, not on income or sales? With a tax code organized based on net worth instead of income you promote frivolous spending to avoid paying taxes (i.e. lower net worth means lower taxes). Is that really something we want to promote?

 

What a great idea to increase GDP.

 

Things for the general welfare benefit everyone. When some people are forced to pay for programs, but reap no benefit from those programs, those programs stop being for the general welfare and are actually for the specific welfare of the recipients.

 

"Well I wonder why they don't think Republicans are giving hand-outs to the rich."
.... That's a joke, right? That is literally all you hear from those on the Left. Unless you are referring to a different "they."

"Are the rich really crying, "I can't hire anyone because I can't afford it" while living like this?"
a.) No one is saying that the rich can't afford to hire more people. But rather that it isn't cost effective to do so. There is a difference. A poor family may be able to afford a cable service with all of the perks.. But doing so may force them to eat nothing but ramen noodles. They can afford it, but it is a bad idea. But even more directly related to cost effectiveness is a cost/benefit analysis of hiring an employee. Why on earth would anyone hire someone who only brings their company $50,000 of revenue if it cost the company $100,000 dollars to bring on that employee (between salary, benefits, training, etc.) That is not only stupid, but will ensure that the company can not hire anyone else, because there will be no money to pay them!
b.) You focused solely on rich individuals. But individuals are not the only ones harmed by over taxation and regulation. Corporations are as well. And a corporation is not buying the fictitious thousand dollar dinners (that you completely made up), or mansions. Their money can be routed for pretty much rehiring (or other investments in the company) and not much else.

"Why is America buying this? If a rich person with 4 houses gains more money because of tax cuts, they are going to buy a 5th house. It's why they have 4 houses to begin with."
So the house they buy, did it just appear out of thin air? Or was that house built by a construction worker? Was that construction worker likely a billionaire, or not? Was the real estate agent who helped the buyer (or the one who helped the seller) a billionaire? The bank owners who potentially provided a loan are probably filthy rich. But the local manager/teller/loan officer are almost guaranteed not to be. Know who else isn't filthy rich? The waiter/busboy/chef/host (or hostess) at the restaurant where the rich person bought their "thousands of dollar" meal. Neither are the auto worker who built their cars, the aero workers who built their jets, or the ship builder who made their yachts. So you're right. Tax cuts will just give the rich more to spend. And they will probably spend it. And it will in turn help a large number of working and middle class families, who will have more money to spend, and will thereby help the shop owners whose shops they spent money at, and so on and so forth. That is why it makes sense to tax at a lower rate.

But there are also two other huge reasons to decrease taxes on the wealthy (along with everyone else.) The first is the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve demonstrates that as you increase taxes past a certain point, you receive diminishing returns. In fact a professor at UC Berkley (not many Romney supporters there) showed that the rate that you begin to see diminishing returns after is 33%, currently lower than the rate imposed on the highest tax bracket. That professor, Christine Rohmer, formerly Obama's chief economic adviser. But the most important reason is fairness. It is almost a cliche it is said so often (but is certainly true) that it is immoral to ask others to do something you are unwilling to do yourself. You obviously do not pay even the 35% of your income in taxes, let alone the unspecified higher amount that you are demanding that the rich pay. This is a truly evil position. This is no different than a politician who proposes making it illegal to commit adultery, but is at the exact same time cheating on his wife. So until you (or Obama, who paid approximately 20%) pay 35%, or the increased rate you are demanding, you are engaging in a truly evil debate, demanding others do what you are unwilling to.

 

That's not what the father of the consitution says:

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

 

Roads, bridges and other infrastructure do benefit the society in general and nearly everyone. Those fit quite well within the concept of general welfare.

Paying able bodied individuals not to work only benefits the recipients. It in no way benefits the other people or the nation. In fact, it is to the detriment of society because it reduces their motivation to ever work and become productive.