You're saying a random number is reasonable because it does the same thing a number 2x the size would do, or half the size would do. Both would reduce inequality in wealth (not inequality though, geez you have a hard time with specifics).
That's a bad idea. Fine them sure, but jail isn't free to the American taxpayer. Fines put money into the system, incarceration removes money. Fine businesses that knowingly hire people who don't have proper do entation (illegal would be hard to discern, all you'd know is you didn't require proper do entation). Make the system pay for itself. We have enough people in jail for non violent crimes.
Do you give your money to the poor? You can involve yourself in wealth redistribution all you like.you're the one who is arguing for zero forced wealth redistribution, even though you can't provide a singe society in the history of civilization that has ever implemented such a policy successfully.
I'm arguing for limited forced wealth redistribution through tax policy in an effort to reduce inequality. There is plenty of data to back up my position.
You appear to be the one who's winging it.
What you're arguing for already exists. How's that inequality thing going? The poorest communities that rely the heaviest on welfare programs are the ones who cry hardest about being disenfranchised. We're talking about career welfare recipients who make a life of it and teach it to their offspring. Where's the equality in that?
It's really easy to use general terms like inequality and "limited" if you don't have to think about the actual numbers or reasons or current provisions. You just cry "inequality" and expect that is going to somehow mean something.
The point is: put YOUR money/car where your mouth is. Don't force me to give up MINE - let them go work for their own. It irritates me no end when I hear the term "jobs that Americans won't do." And why in the world would they want to do them, when they can sit at home and collect food stamps, subsidized housing, free cell phone, etc on OUR dime.we have to get used to this with the donald in office.if tillerson is involved in policy
amazing LIES from you people, just amazing, but expected.
the free phone started with St Ronnie The Diseased, not Obama.
"On average, SNAP households currently receive about $255 a month. The average SNAP benefit per person is about $126 per month, which works out to about $1.40per person per meal. "
https://www.google.com/search?q=aver...hrome&ie=UTF-8
The majority of people on public assistance have jobs paying poverty wages from millionaires and billionaires, and the majority of them are white.
Vouchers for homeschoolers means taxpayers are subsidizing homeschoolers NOT to work and to indoctrinate their kids with bull .
I don't care who ins uted what. Welfare should not be something that goes on and on - sometimes for generations. You won't see any post of mine advocating for vouchers for homeschoolers - even if homeschoolers pay property tax/rent same as public school students. The money SHOULD follow the student - but that would crash your beloved public school system. I advocate choice of public schooling but you'd rather back the teachers' unions than our kids.
nobody told you to give up your car
and im not talking about welfare or unemployment. i'm talking about putting scientific progress ahead of corporate interests, something unlikely to happen in the next 4 years
The MINE refers to my money (forced wealth re-distribution discussion). The car is in reference to climate changer - if you're all so concerned about it, why aren't there many more people riding bikes and walking (which would help with our obesity problem and probably save us a ton). Yes, I know you're talking about "science" - I'm still on the forced wealth re-distribution (that includes Obamacare). And emissions regulations cost us all.
"why aren't there many more people riding bikes and walking"
... because in most cities, esp in the sunbelt, infrastructure, distances have been provided for, preferred cars, not walking, biking.
ing about health insurance, but not ing about mandatory automobile insurance.
Me, myself and I...
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what...
This cuts both ways. In large societies we must agree to work together in some ways. I personally am against the redistribution of wealth via government. However, if there is something the government has done to allow wealth to be distributed unequally in the first place... It seems we have a problem that is creating more of a division of wealth. This, IMO, is part of what got Trump elected. He is displaying this via his Boeing press, etc...
The problem is conservatives don't often see what they themselves are using to gain wealth. Often it is the government. So on your way to the top, stay off my federally funded road with your car while going to work. Hike there. Conservatives don't understand that they are using PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE to gain wealth. So when that big oil truck goes down my city road and tears it up... and then YOU give said oil company all kinds of breaks to keep it functional...
And when that large company comes in promising jobs and the city decides they don't have to pay properly taxes like ME, MYSELF, AND I
Give it a thought. Just for a second think about how you use the public domain to make money. Then go to frkin India and never get to work because there are no traffic lights synchronized off of MY money.
Seventeen is not a random number and it's very specific. Of the people who pay the estate tax it's the average percentage paid.
It's also quite easy to speak absolutely, as you have, when there is no data to back up your position.
The reality is that your proposition is not serious and is completely untenable, which is why you cannot provide a single historical example of it being implemented.
The edgy libertarian shtick where you pretend like letting poor people die is reasonable policy has been played out on this forum multiple times.
What percentage of your income did you give to charity last year?
I he - so 10% of gross, and I get to CHOOSE where that freely given money goes. It isn't taken from me and used to perpetuate generational welfare, fund Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, etc.
So it was given to your church? How much of it went to the Church's operating expenses? How much of it was directed to helping the poor since it seems you'd prefer this be a completely voluntary process.
LOL at thinking anyone could possibly guilt me into thinking I don't contribute "my fair share," that I haven't contributed plenty to support that PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, that I don't pay plenty of property taxes on my home and rental to support PUBLIC EDUCATION. You talk as if conservatives don't also pay taxes. What I object to is the waste, irresponsibility, and sheer arrogance of government in thinking that they know best - that young people will willingly pay through the nose to support Obamacare (for the good of society), that people won't act in their self-interest and "game" the system by enrolling, getting treatment and dropping, that people won't deliberately cut back on hours to maintain their welfare, etc.
Uninterrupted carbon emissions will also cost us all, including future generations. It's easy to brush it off when you haven't personally experienced effects yet. I liken it to people deciding not to floss their teeth because they haven't had dental issues yet. Except in this scenario, us not flossing our teeth because we're unwilling to make the effort will cause later generations to suffer the consequences. The only excuse is the false hope that by then we'll invent a way to quickly fix all the climate issues, despite the fact that it not only isn't feasible but that we continue to cut funding to research in these fields when we elect climate change skeptics
I can agree with that. Just make sure the fine is large enough to hurt them. Maybe $20,000 per illegal.
Don't falsely equivocate poor with lazy. Poor people won't starve. Lazy people will, for a while.
What society do you want to emulate?
Its just feel good . The bulk of the rotw isn't doing anything about it. We should go bankrupt to feel good?
So true.
If we were to stop subsidizing people, it would be allowing nature to take course.
I'm not in favor of making sudden changes, but maybe reduce subsidizes by 10% per year until they are to zero. Those who deserve to maintain a particular standard of living, will.
oh ok it then. its easy for old s to have that mentality since they're not going to be dealing with this
You had it handed to you. Do something to earn it.
Futile endeavors need to end after college.
For economicus, sure.
Clearly our mission as human beings and free citizens is to reproduce the existing social order. If one's chosen vocation is not adequately remunerative to retire one's debt, one is a failure and socially worthless ipso facto.
The game is matching ones debt to ones income.
You ever play poker with friends?
I do. I lose as many times as I win. But it wouldn't have any meaning if we all split the pot back at the end of the night. Why play?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote