How much extra in taxes would you pay to eliminate poverty?

[DrDoug]

Taxes have been increased before. It's the majority of the poor people's fault, not the hard working tax paying citizens. This is not the answer, unless you're a libtard, then of course it is, will always be, and no tax increases will ever be enough. Sick of socialist bastards who think this way. Let's start by culling all the able bodied welfare recipients and create community service jobs for them to do. Train them to do something and make them understand that in order to eat, you must work. Don't show up, no food for you. No free lunch...no free rent...no free phones. If you're gonna get, you must go. The Obama administration is the worst I've ever seen at enabling this shit. The only exemptions should be those with with real disabilities and the elderly. Again, people who choose not to pull their own share of the load are not entitled to what I have earned.

Calm down there Sparky, all I did was make an observation about the obvious. I bet the same results would happen if they were asked how much in total taxes do they think is fair for them to pay...lol!

 

[LTC8K6]

With the $1T stimulus, they could have given 25 million poor families, $40K each.

Since they are just printing more and more anyway...

 

[LTC8K6]

I voted nothing, because the tax money always disappears to little noticeable results. No matter how much they collect, they always need more, and the problems the tax money is supposed to help, remain as before.

 

[BoberFett]

Nothing says IGMFY louder than the results of this poll...lol!

What's your tax bill every year, Mr Bigshot?

 

[DrDoug]

What's your tax bill every year, Mr Bigshot?

Enough. I pay both state (Oregon) and federal, yet somehow I've survived.

Quite well, in fact.

 

[piasabird]

You will always have the poor. You cant force people to want to be prosperous or have a good work ethic. Government does the best job when it gets the hell out of the way. More government just means more waste and more taxes. If you try to help the poor, you just get more free-loaders who live off the government. I believe in helping people for compassionate reasons, but the government is not a charity. At my church I donate money for welfare and they give it to people but we don't hire someone at over $100k to manage the money. We do it for free.

 

[compuwiz1]

You will always have the poor. You cant force people to want to be prosperous or have a good work ethic. Government does the best job when it gets the hell out of the way. More government just means more waste and more taxes. If you try to help the poor, you just get more free-loaders who live off the government. I believe in helping people for compassionate reasons, but the government is not a charity. At my church I donate money for welfare and they give it to people but we don't hire someone at over $100k to manage the money. We do it for free.

Pretty much same as my stance on this. Just like those who keep trying to get us to a $15 per hour minimum wage....when everything impacted adjusts, those same people are going to still be the poorest segment of society. Enabling people to remain fat and lazy is just promoting the same behavior that keeps on keeping people down. There are plenty of people out there who need some really tough love. Giving them more money, via other people's money such as increasing taxes will not work. It's like trying to push a string to straighten itself out. Not happening.

 

[chucky2]

snip

I would say you should look at what "free" life really looks like. It's not pretty. I would honestly challenge anyone who thinks they have it so easy to try and live under those constraints for a few months. I think you will come back singing a different tune.

Holy wow...Nick you are really spinning now. Just curious, are you going to stick with this attempted diversion or re-think it and maybe come to understand how it really makes zero sense? Or, go Nick on it, stick with it, and go McOwned? Two of those three provides entertainment so I honestly don't care which you pick...

 

[fskimospy]

Holy wow...Nick you are really spinning now. Just curious, are you going to stick with this attempted diversion or re-think it and maybe come to understand how it really makes zero sense? Or, go Nick on it, stick with it, and go McOwned? Two of those three provides entertainment so I honestly don't care which you pick...

It was 2AM, so I'll just assume you were drunk when you wrote this. I'm trying to be nice and not make fun of your nonsensical raving like I usually do, haha. Call it an early New Years resolution.

 

[QuantumPion]

You can't buy people out of poverty any more than you can exercise on behalf of fat people.

 

[PokerGuy]

I voted "0% - Nothing", because no amount of additional taxation could ever eliminate poverty anyway. Additional taxes would just be more money for some idiot in DC to give to his cronies or waste on something stupid, it would never result in poverty getting eliminated.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Contributing to the anyone, let alone the government, any amount of money is wasteful and would probably contribute to poverty just as abused welfare does now.

It's a great idea comrade in a utopia society that doesn't exist.

 

[fskimospy]

It's amazing how many times in this thread that grand pronouncements have been made that the government cannot alleviate poverty with zero evidence to back that up.

This is most likely due to the fact that the evidence clearly shows the government can alleviate poverty. Whether you WANT the government to do that or not is a different story, but declaring it cannot is moon logic.

Please don't link to Paul Ryan's report on the war on poverty, btw. We should all know enough about him by now to realize he's trying to dupe dumb people. You will regret it.

 

[z1ggy]

Communism didn't work. So, 0%.

 

[Angry Irishman]

It's amazing how many times in this thread that grand pronouncements have been made that the government cannot alleviate poverty with zero evidence to back that up.

This is most likely due to the fact that the evidence clearly shows the government can alleviate poverty. Whether you WANT the government to do that or not is a different story, but declaring it cannot is moon logic.

Please don't link to Paul Ryan's report on the war on poverty, btw. We should all know enough about him by now to realize he's trying to dupe dumb people. You will regret it.

Well with the extreme efficiency of our government who can argue?

The Federal government has basic functions....solving poverty and half the shit is does now aren't included. This is an American ideal which unfortunately has gone right down the shitter. It really is OK to be skeptical of government....it really is. I don't WANT the government sticking it's dick beaters further into my pocket for a wasted effort nor would it be able to fix poverty, nor should it. It's also AMAZING how many people on this board forget basic government functions and are so trusting and willing to push underlying agendas that reach far beyond the basic mandate of the federal government.

 

[fskimospy]

Well with the extreme efficiency of our government who can argue?

The Federal government has basic functions....solving poverty and half the shit is does now aren't included. This is an American ideal which unfortunately has gone right down the shitter. It really is OK to be skeptical of government....it really is. I don't WANT the government sticking it's dick beaters further into my pocket for a wasted effort nor would it be able to fix poverty, nor should it. It's also AMAZING how many people on this board forget basic government functions and are so trusting and willing to push underlying agendas that reach far beyond the basic mandate of the federal government.

The functions of government are whatever we say they are. That's how government works.

 

[Angry Irishman]

The functions of government are whatever we say they are. That's how government works.

The Constitution lays out the basic roles of the federal government. That said, we have strayed from that as a nation and I (IMO) don't wish to steer further off the path. We have programs galore that address poverty, there is no need for further inefficient utilization of tax payers money. Those programs that currently exist are in dire need of revision.

 

[fskimospy]

The Constitution lays out the basic roles of the federal government. That said, we have strayed from that as a nation and I (IMO) don't wish to steer further off the path. We have programs galore that address poverty, there is no need for further inefficient utilization of tax payers money. Those programs that currently exist are in dire need of revision.

The Constitution makes no statement as to whether or not the federal government should act to alleviate poverty. If anything, the Constitution endorses that role as it is clearly within the federal government's powers.

Even if it did, we can change the Constitution as we have before. So again, the role of government is whatever we say it is. In this case the people have clearly spoken and said that the role of government includes alleviating poverty.

 

[inachu]

For me it is not about eradicating poverty but how to keep it from growing.

A. Make sure all companies in USA are hiring Americans first.
B. To validate point A. make sure they also are hiring vets.
C. Confirm A. and B. are happening.
D. If companies cry for non american wage earners then tell them to shut up until C. has been met.

Outlaw contracting when it comes to in house cleaning as they ALWAYS hire illegals who barely speak english which usually is a tell tale sign on breaking the law.
(but not always)

 

[FerrelGeek]

If what you're talking about is simple wealth redistribution, a guaranteed income, socialized medical, things like that, I'd quit working the day it started and go get in line for my free stuff.

And so would many others, reducing the producers, thereby reducing revenue. The system would collapse.

 

[Jaskalas]

Outlaw contracting when it comes to in house cleaning as they ALWAYS hire illegals who barely speak english which usually is a tell tale sign on breaking the law.
(but not always)

What if Americans don't want to clean homes?

Also... the world's "free" trade where our workers compete with slave labor overseas is difficult to manage. We're essentially shipping our wealth overseas and then wondering about our poor. The issues we face are so much more fundamental than wealth redistribution. We need new policy that transforms the American economy and reshapes how we position our labor market.

ATM, all we're doing is racing with Asia to see if they can bring their workers up to our poverty level... or if we can bring our workers down to theirs.

 

[boomerang]

And so would many others, reducing the producers, thereby reducing revenue. The system would collapse.

Hey, would you please stop thinking of the consequences and just concentrate on the potential? Don't you know it can work if you have the right people orchestrating it all? It's not like mankind hasn't learned from earlier mistakes. Why can't it be accomplished this time without all the mass killings? Of course, what do you do with those that won't acquiesce?

Hmm, well, let's just leave the details to our leaders. We don't need to know how the sausage is made we just need to enjoy the sausage.

 

[boomerang]

What if Americans don't want to clean homes?

Also... the world's "free" trade where our workers compete with slave labor overseas is difficult to manage. We're essentially shipping our wealth overseas and then wondering about our poor. The issues we face are so much more fundamental than wealth redistribution. We need new policy that transforms the American economy and reshapes how we position our labor market.

ATM, all we're doing is racing with Asia to see if they can bring their workers up to our poverty level... or if we can bring our workers down to theirs.

Well, a great first step is to import poor people by the tens of millions into the nation. Everyone knows this.

 

[Angry Irishman]

The Constitution makes no statement as to whether or not the federal government should act to alleviate poverty. If anything, the Constitution endorses that role as it is clearly within the federal government's powers.

Even if it did, we can change the Constitution as we have before. So again, the role of government is whatever we say it is. In this case the people have clearly spoken and said that the role of government includes alleviating poverty.

Everything is open ended when there is an agenda. The Constitution is a fluid document that can be changed. When it's changed to include the mandate to alleviate poverty with tax money let me know.

The people have spoken....hahhahhaaaaa! Spoken to what? Welfare? Please.... Welfare has a role and purpose but it's clearly out of hand and abused.
.

 

[BoberFett]

The functions of government are whatever we say they are. That's how government works.

No, you believe the functions of government are what you say they are. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you bring out your smug face and make statements like "I'm shocked that people disagree with me when I tell them my opinion is right."