Who gets more Welfare, The rich or the poor?

[Anarchist420]

This is a pretty absurd question. Any "Welfare" received by a "rich" person would be paid for by themselves and other "rich" people. Poor people do not pay income tax, so therefor their very existence is subsidized by others.

not really because one can pay plenty of income tax and still be a net tax consumer.

 

[ElFenix]

This is a pretty absurd question.

Any "Welfare" received by a "rich" person would be paid for by themselves and other "rich" people.

Poor people do not pay income tax, so therefor their very existence is subsidized by others.

That's only if you assume the same people would be wealthy. Which is probably not the case.


edit: further, a lot of 'welfare' that is received by the impoverished isn't welfare just for them. the idaho potato board isn't paying off congresscritters to get white potatoes added to WIC because of the good of their hearts.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...supplemental-nutrition-program-white-potatoes

 

[Fern]

Religious con artists. They don't have to pay any taxes.

It must be a case of politicians paying homage to the biggest con artists of all time. The original con artists. Preachers.

Preachers file returns and pay tax on the money they receive.

Fern

 

[LightPattern]

Just look at the Farm Bill, Energy subsidies, Solar Panels, Electric Cars, Dairy Farms, Electric Monopolies. You name it. Every sector of business has their hands out. The worst part of the economy are people that work for a living.

Corporations get a Tax abatement and the home owner gets the bill.

Complaining about the government being responsible for monopolies and wanting to see it stripped of as much power as possible.. So that private business will behave itself like it did before the Sherman Antitrust Act!

 

[LightPattern]

As to your first sentence, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that disagrees. I would add some others to the list, but you were speaking in generalities, I get that.

Your second sentence is pretty harsh because unemployment has always existed and will always exist barring some miraculous change. But I get your message and agree with it. There are signs for hiring all over my area now. My wife used to manage a business and she got calls from people about employment that just wanted to use her as a contact to satisfy the unemployment office. Although she was looking to hire, they weren't actually interested in working, just in retaining their unemployment. When I tell that story, I always get told I'm making things up. When the system pays out more or close to what people can make working, something's wrong. To address a problem you first have to come to grips that you have one.

Your third sentence describes the system as it currently exists. Take out the huge amounts of corruption and waste and it would be greatly improved.

Your last paragraph touches on a situation that can only be corrected by an enormous overhaul of our tax system. No better time to start than now in my opinion. Unfortunately for all of us, the people that make the rules are totally and wholly corrupt. So how about we work together to rid the system of them?

See Article V in my sig.

Also see:
Lawrence Lessig:

The unstoppable walk to political reform

 

[realibrad]

Complaining about the government being responsible for monopolies and wanting to see it stripped of as much power as possible.. So that private business will behave itself like it did before the Sherman Antitrust Act!

Um....

I defy you to name a pre-Sherman monopoly that was not backed by and sustained by the government.

You will find successful companies that created great things and then when new competitors came along, they lost market share. The true monopolies were supported by the government.

Just because a low was passed to stop something, does not mean the government was not backing it in the first place. Just think of slavery, which was enforced by the government.

 

[Vic]

So not allowing other people to pillage your daughter, rape your cattle, and eat your car is now defined as "welfare"

Seems like the liberals War on English is continuing at breakneck pace.

You are one pathetic troll.

This particular example of this war on the English language you refer to must have been initiated when the Founding Fathers wrote the preamble to the Constitution.

Are you saying that government protection of private property (through both criminal and civil courts) costs the taxpayers nothing?

 

[nehalem256]

You are one pathetic troll.

This particular example of this war on the English language you refer to must have been initiated when the Founding Fathers wrote the preamble to the Constitution.

Are you saying that government protection of private property (through both criminal and civil courts) costs the taxpayers nothing?

I am saying that no sane person defines law enforcement and courts as a welfare program.

 

[Fern]

I believe nehalem256 has a point about the English language.

Welfare: The govt giving you other peoples' money

Corporate and individual tax breaks: The govt allowing you to keep more of your own money.

The two above are entirely dissimilar yet conflated by those attempting to label them both as "welfare". In addition to the difference of who is getting who's money they also have different purposes. In the former the govt/society recognizes some have a hardship and need public assistance. In the latter the govt is trying to motivate the person (company etc) to some action the govt itself deems beneficial to its purpose.

Corporate bailouts may qualify as the former, particularly is the interest is below FMV. Loan guarantees as we have seen given to some 'green' companies would qualify because do provide for below FMV interest rates.

Most other tax breaks provided to businesses/companies do not. Those are provided to induce the business/companies to do something the govt itself deems beneficial (e.g., investment tax credit).

(We also a very limited amount of tax breaks that are simply "loopholes". E.g., the carried interest provision for fund managers that is entirely unintentional. Congress has made several efforts over the years to eliminate that loophole but have been unsuccessful.)

Fern

 

[OCGuy]

I.
Corporate and individual tax breaks: The govt allowing you to keep more of your own money.

Mostly true, except the libtards have found a way to give tax breaks to people who DON'T PAY TAXES. There are millions of people who have $800 in federal tax held for the year, then file their tax returns and receive a $2800 "refund" (example).

 

[Vic]

This is a pretty absurd question.

Any "Welfare" received by a "rich" person would be paid for by themselves and other "rich" people.

Poor people do not pay income tax, so therefor their very existence is subsidized by others.

Income is a means to wealth but not wealth itself. Wealth is defined as the ownership of assets. So it is very possible for a person to be wealthy and pay no income tax.

 

[LightPattern]

Um....

I defy you to name a pre-Sherman monopoly that was not backed by and sustained by the government.

You will find successful companies that created great things and then when new competitors came along, they lost market share. The true monopolies were supported by the government.

Just because a low was passed to stop something, does not mean the government was not backing it in the first place. Just think of slavery, which was enforced by the government.

Umm...
The government IS people.. who are themselves backed and sustained by people with other sources of power.

I'll bite and bring out the boogieman...
When entrepreneurs tried to compete with Standard Oil Co. you think that, in the absence of g-men, Rockefeller would have comported himself better?
The record of abominable business practices and questionable tactics that were employed is primary education material in the US.

 

[Vic]

I am saying that no sane person defines law enforcement and courts as a welfare program.

What do you suppose would happen to the crime rate if all the public assistance programs were terminated?

 

[Vic]

Preachers file returns and pay tax on the money they receive.

Fern

Only on the money that they receive as income. Which is why preachers are generally paid through non-taxable allowances, i.e. housing allowance, meal allowance, travel allowance, etc.

 

[Vic]

As to your first sentence, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that disagrees. I would add some others to the list, but you were speaking in generalities, I get that.

Your second sentence is pretty harsh because unemployment has always existed and will always exist barring some miraculous change. But I get your message and agree with it. There are signs for hiring all over my area now. My wife used to manage a business and she got calls from people about employment that just wanted to use her as a contact to satisfy the unemployment office. Although she was looking to hire, they weren't actually interested in working, just in retaining their unemployment. When I tell that story, I always get told I'm making things up. When the system pays out more or close to what people can make working, something's wrong. To address a problem you first have to come to grips that you have one.

Your third sentence describes the system as it currently exists. Take out the huge amounts of corruption and waste and it would be greatly improved.

Your last paragraph touches on a situation that can only be corrected by an enormous overhaul of our tax system. No better time to start than now in my opinion. Unfortunately for all of us, the people that make the rules are totally and wholly corrupt. So how about we work together to rid the system of them?

See Article V in my sig.

Unemployment benefits are insurance, not public assistance. People pay into it while they are working, and claims are based off the amount paid in and are denied if the claimant is unemployed through their own doing (i.e. they quit or were fired for cause).

Like any insurance, they are certainly some fraudsters, but those are the minority. The vast majority of unemployed persons receiving unemployment benefits are workers who were laid off through no fault of their own and are genuinely seeking new employment.

 

[realibrad]

Umm...
The government IS people.. who are themselves backed and sustained by people with other sources of power.

I'll bite and bring out the boogieman...
When entrepreneurs tried to compete with Standard Oil Co. you think that, in the absence of g-men, Rockefeller would have comported himself better?
The record of abominable business practices and questionable tactics that were employed is primary education material in the US.

So Standard Oil...

The biggest thing they did to be a monopoly was undercut their competitors by reducing prices so low, that others could not sell and make a profit. In other words, they lowered prices and kept doing so when ever another company competed. How awful...

Now, that isint to say that the company did not do horrible things to its workers, but that had nothing to do with its success. But on the effect to the economy, Standard Oil did not hurt it.

 

[Fern]

Only on the money that they receive as income. Which is why preachers are generally paid through non-taxable allowances, i.e. housing allowance, meal allowance, travel
allowance, etc.

(Which what I said exactly.)

All those allowances are treated just as any other (non-preacher) employee's allowance. I.e., they are, for the most part, subject to the same rules as everybody else.

Fern

 

[OCGuy]

Income is a means to wealth but not wealth itself. Wealth is defined as the ownership of assets. So it is very possible for a person to be wealthy and pay no income tax.

Wealth is just pooled income that somebody already paid taxes on

 

[Vic]

(Which what I said exactly.)

All those allowances are treated just as any other (non-preacher) employee's allowance. I.e., they are, for the most part, subject to the same rules as everybody else.

Fern

Not really, because churches, unlike private businesses, don't have to pay taxes on those allowances.

 

[Fern]

Not really, because churches, unlike private businesses, don't have to pay taxes on those allowances.

I'm not sure what you mean.

E.g., If an employee's work demands that he live in employer sponsored housing due to the nature of the job the employee doesn't get taxed on the value of the housing (e.g. oil rig workers). The employer, however, does get to deduct the cost of the housing. Same for food and travel expenses that are non-taxable to the employee. (IIRC, housing allowances for preachers are subject to SS, just not income tax. Also, IIRC regular employees are not taxed for SS purposes if such allowances are non-taxable for income purposes.)

The difference is that since churches don't pay income taxes they don't get any deduction from income taxes for those allowances. But that also means, mathematically, they are treated identically.

Fern

 

[Matt1970]

Not really, because churches, unlike private businesses, don't have to pay taxes on those allowances.

The only taxes you could really get a church to pay are property taxes. Everything else is either salaries, donations or would go towards improving to the church which would all be tax deductible anyways.

 

[boomerang]

Unemployment benefits are insurance, not public assistance. People pay into it while they are working, and claims are based off the amount paid in and are denied if the claimant is unemployed through their own doing (i.e. they quit or were fired for cause).

Like any insurance, they are certainly some fraudsters, but those are the minority. The vast majority of unemployed persons receiving unemployment benefits are workers who were laid off through no fault of their own and are genuinely seeking new employment.

We've had these discussions before here about the leftist notion that workers pay into a fund to cover unemployment. I thought you were smarter than this. You are embarrassingly uninformed.

I give your post three Pinocchio's.

:facepalm:

 

[MongGrel]

We've had these discussions before here about the leftist notion that workers pay into a fund to cover unemployment. I thought you were smarter than this. Guess not.

I give your post three Pinocchio's.

:facepalm:

You're really very ignorant if you do not think workers pay to fund unemployment.

 

[boomerang]

You're really very ignorant if you do not think workers pay to fund unemployment.

OK, here we go again. On a paystub, what does it appear as?

 

[Matt1970]

OK, here we go again. On a paystub, what does it appear as?

I am guessing they don't even get a paycheck if they think employees pay for it.