Anyone considering not supporting Obama in 2012?

Stigmata said:
But you can't generalise like that. Not all financial problems are the result of poor spending.
Click to expand...
I didn't say all of them were. All the people who've slaved themselves to the EITC are the result of poor spending habits. I can understand if someone's used it as a bailout once or even twice and had it save their ass. But when it becomes ingrained as part of your yearly income that you DEPEND on year after year, even having more children just to qualify for it (along with other state, non fed benefits) there is a real problem there and it's the fault of the individual.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm against the income tax, period. But if there is going to be one at all, there definately shouldn't be redistribution of wealth. Your refund should never exceed what you paid. If your tax liability is 0 then that's fine, get everything back. But don't have the IRS pay people and subsidize others poor financial choices. That's pure money redistribution. The EITC is terrible.
Click to expand...

You know that's something that REALLY pisses me off... when people chalk up the reason poor people exist as being their inability to make wise financial choices. There's a reason why most of the poor are poor, and it's not because of poor financial choices.

Also the assumption that poor people somehow don't live within their means? Wtf, seriously?

Not creating a budget and spending less than they earn, and saving up for hardship and retirement.
Click to expand...

You don't know anything about the majority of poor people obviously. Your typical poor family, old poor... those are some of the most frugal people around, because they have to be... and they're not living outside their means. And the income they make is bad enough as it is to keep themselves sustained, let alone their families.
 
Aren't some of the immigrant families poor ? Who work long, excruciating hours and save like crazy so that their children can go to a better school and stuff ?
 
Raziaar said:
You know that's something that REALLY pisses me off... when people chalk up the reason poor people exist as being their inability to make wise financial choices. There's a reason why most of the poor are poor, and it's not because of poor financial choices.

Also the assumption that poor people somehow don't live within their means? Wtf, seriously?
Click to expand...

Nah, he's right. I mean, look at these statistics. 99.9% of poor people have refrigerators! They even have left over money to splurge on entertainment, with 79% of them having at least one VCR! If these people can afford to preserve their food for days on end, and sit back and watch some good 90's entertainment, then surely they can't be considered poor?
 
If all those poor people just sold their televisions and cut out their Internet expenses and reverted to card games and smoke signals, they'd easily have enough money to afford proper nutrition. They are simply being unreasonable.
 
Raziaar said:
You know that's something that REALLY pisses me off... when people chalk up the reason poor people exist as being their inability to make wise financial choices. There's a reason why most of the poor are poor, and it's not because of poor financial choices.

Also the assumption that poor people somehow don't live within their means? Wtf, seriously?
Click to expand...
I'm talking about people who slave themselves into the EITC credit.
Did you read my post? "All the people who've slaved themselves to the EITC are the result of poor spending habits."

It doesn't say "all poor people are because of poor spending habits" although in many people's cases ( NOT all ) it is often is due to poor financial choices. We all make our own fate. What really pisses me off is when people look at others who have done well for themselves and claim "It's just because they got lucky."



Raziaar said:
You don't know anything about the majority of poor people obviously. Your typical poor family, old poor... those are some of the most frugal people around, because they have to be... and they're not living outside their means. And the income they make is bad enough as it is to keep themselves sustained, let alone their families.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with being slaved into the EITC. If you're poor, but not depending on the EITC to get by, then you're living within YOUR budget. Depending on the government to subsidize your life is a recipe for failure and a guarantee to keep your family tree poor forever.

If you're not making enough money to live the lifestyle you desire, you need to increase your income and cut spending to the barebones until you can divert your funds to where you desire them. This isn't an overnight thing, but if one cannot do this within several years there is a serious problem with motivation or ability.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
I'm talking about people who slave themselves into the EITC credit.
Did you read my post? "All the people who've slaved themselves to the EITC are the result of poor spending habits."

It doesn't say "all poor people are because of poor spending habits" although in many people's cases ( NOT all ) it is often is due to poor financial choices. We all make our own fate. What really pisses me off is when people look at others who have done well for themselves and claim "It's just because they got lucky."
Click to expand...

How are people who get more money back from taxes than they put in, like you say, enslaved... and how does a surplus in wealth from it equate to poor spending habits? Makes no sense.




This has nothing to do with being slaved into the EITC. If you're poor, but not depending on the EITC to get by, then you're living within YOUR budget. Depending on the government to subsidize your life is a recipe for failure and a guarantee to keep your family tree poor forever.

If you're not making enough money to live the lifestyle you desire, you need to increase your income and cut spending to the barebones until you can divert your funds to where you desire them. This isn't an overnight thing, but if one cannot do this within several years there is a serious problem with motivation or ability.
Click to expand...

What on earth makes you think that people who apply for EITC(i'm one of them) depend on that money to get them by. That they somehow adjust their spending throughout the year to factor in that return as guaranteed income and are thus dependent on it? What I did, and what most people likely do(what common sense tells me, not what kind of baloney you're throwing out), is spend that money as an unexpected income. Used it to buy something nice for their kids or maybe make a bill payment that they otherwise couldn't at that moment. It's pretty pathetic to assume that people factor that sort of shit into their budget, especially since the amount is so low... and then buy shit based on that yet to be received income and somehow get themselves into a bind if it should not come. That's total bullshit.

Most poor people already have their spending down to the ****ing barebones RakuraiTenjin. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to live with the funds that your average family does who are below the poverty line? Quit ****ing making the bullshit assumptions that these people are spending lavishly, rocking their welfare and living the high life. Only dumb people believe that kind of perpetuated myth... and they only believe it because they seem to have a really deep rooted resentment for poor people. Most poor people are not poor because they make awful financial decisions or are not hardworking. Most of your poor families have members who are working multiple jobs, taking precious time away from their families just to make ends meet. It's a result of the poor upward mobility in this country.

Do you really believe that all those poor people could just suddenly become wealthy? Do you think there's any framework in this country to support that? Any excess wealth just free flowing for those who have the gusto to take it to go from poor to middle or upper class? Obviously there are going to be people who blow all their money on drugs or other frivolous things, but those people are SO few and far between compared to the millions of others, they're not even worth mentioning. It's certainly dishonest to use them as the base for the mythology of poor people in this country. Most poor people are living a grueling, honest life of hard work, often at multiple jobs just to make ends meet in a society that doesn't easily allow their upward mobility.

This ignorance pisses me off, and so does blaming poor people's wealth on the poor people entirely and not on the societal equality divide of the countries they live in. This shit is perpetuated incessantly by the right, and you're not bringing anything new to the table in providing a convincing argument that poor people are a result of their own incompetence.

EDIT: I actually don't know if the EITC was the thing I put on there. Is that only for people who have children? There was something on there that allowed me to get money back because I made so little that year.
 
Stigmata said:
You're right - it says "All poor people who use EITC are doing it because of poor spending habits".
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. CNTRL F of that quotation "Text Not Found" (except for your post)

Anybody who SLAVES THEMSELVES into the EITC is doing so because of poor spending habits. If you put the EITC into your budget as guaranteed income, and your spending doesn't leave enough leftover to potentially remove it from income, that's called a poor spending habit. What's so hard to understand abou that? You should never depend on the government to subsidize your lifestyle. You can use benefits to help you and provide an extra buffer- sure. But when your budget doesn't allow for you to survive if you take those benefits out of the equation you've got a SERIOUS problem with money management. That's just a fact. It has nothing to do with harping on the poor.

I personally know many poor families who do not DEPEND on the EITC. They do receive it, yes, but their budget doesn't include it. When they get it each year it's like an EXTRA 3000 that they can use towards whatever. I still disagree with the concept, but at least they're not being irresponsible and depending on it for survival. I also know some people who factor it into their family budget, and that's just idiocy. And I let them know whenever the subject comes up of taxes- that they shouldn't depend on that to survive and it could (and should) go away at any moment. They simply brush me off and think its far fetched it could ever go away. It's classic grasshopper and ant philosophy.


EDIT:

Raziaar how could you receive the EITC? You're obviously confused and need to do some more research about the subject. I wasn't aware you had children.

You're also mistaken in what I'm posting. Poor spending habits doesn't imply "living a high life" or anything like that. It simply means not living with a balanced budget. Period. Even if you only go $100 over your budget, you're using poor spending habits. If you create a FIRM budget with an emergency fund tucked away, you should not depend on the EITC. ENSLAVEMENT to the EITC means you DEPEND on it to get by. As I said, I know people who receive the EITC, but if they didn't they'd be okay too. It's the people who are eagerly awaiting February to come around so it's tax season to bail them out year after year that have a spending problem. Sure, bailed out once or twice is understandable. Enslaving yourself financially to big brother bailing you out is a recipe of disaster, and the reason many families never pull themselves out of poverty.

A BUDGET is listing all the money you bring in- your INCOME. Minus government subsidies or welfare. Your income only. Then you list your expenses monthly. You allocate a certain amount of your total income to those expenses. Whatever is left over is discretionary spending. If you're running a deficit each month, you've got a major spending problem and need to cut spending in order to get back within budget. Lots of people don't do this- they turn to payday loans or the government to bail them out perpetually. This is okay once in a blue moon. The EITC saving you one year is not enslavement. I'm talking about families who continually need this year after year and 10 years down the line are in the same situation with 0 improvement, in the same situation as before. They need to cut spending to the pure necessities. Which yes, means not having a life at all. You have to bring in money to support a lifestyle of fun and entertainment.

No where am I stating that these poor (and by these poor I mean the specific ones who are enslaved to gvt subsidies) can instantly become wealthy. But they CAN instantly begin living within a firm budget. Then any government subsidies are EXTRAS that help you breathe easier. If a person falls into crisis because they didn't get their government check then they have a serious problem with money management.

And stop taking money management or poor spending habits to mean "living it up" or "living richly" because it doesn't mean that. As I said numerous times, it means spending more than you bring in. You have to simply spend less than you bring in, period. Harsh, aint it?


Twisting my words or the meaning of the terms I'm using doesn't do anyone good. No one in this thread is harping on the poor. The entire time I've been railing against those that DEPEND on gvt subsidies. As I said- plenty of people who are poor don't DEPEND on them. They may qualify for and USE them, but they won't be f***ed if they suddenly went away.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Never was there meant to be income or capital gains tax in this nation when it was founded.
Click to expand...

I'd just like to point out that is a completely meaningless justification for something. That's all I'll say, because economics is beyond me.
 
I don't know what the **** you guys are talking about, but I'm glad you're back Rakurai. Seriously. We haven't had many conservative members with half a brain willing to argue in a while, usually they either give up or get pounded into submission. Makes things a lot more interesting to have someone around whose views are in most cases a direct counterpoint to the prevailing liberal mindset of the forum. It gets Stern all excited too.
 
Silence, sympathiser.
attachment.php
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
No, it doesn't. CNTRL F of that quotation "Text Not Found" (except for your post)

Anybody who SLAVES THEMSELVES into the EITC is doing so because of poor spending habits. If you put the EITC into your budget as guaranteed income, and your spending doesn't leave enough leftover to potentially remove it from income, that's called a poor spending habit. What's so hard to understand abou that? You should never depend on the government to subsidize your lifestyle. You can use benefits to help you and provide an extra buffer- sure. But when your budget doesn't allow for you to survive if you take those benefits out of the equation you've got a SERIOUS problem with money management. That's just a fact. It has nothing to do with harping on the poor.

I personally know many poor families who do not DEPEND on the EITC. They do receive it, yes, but their budget doesn't include it. When they get it each year it's like an EXTRA 3000 that they can use towards whatever. I still disagree with the concept, but at least they're not being irresponsible and depending on it for survival. I also know some people who factor it into their family budget, and that's just idiocy. And I let them know whenever the subject comes up of taxes- that they shouldn't depend on that to survive and it could (and should) go away at any moment. They simply brush me off and think its far fetched it could ever go away. It's classic grasshopper and ant philosophy.
Click to expand...
You are literally harping on the poor while saying you're not. It's inherent in the language you use. I mean really; "Anyone" who "slaves" themselves to the EITC "is" doing so "because" of "poor spending habits". Pardon me, but no. You can't make blanket statements like that, and then tell me that you're being even-handed. It's cute that you thought I was directly quoting you, but I was really just restating something you had already said.

Oh, you "personally know" "many" "poor families" who "do not DEPEND on" the EITC? Great. Good for them. Are they every poor family in the country? Does their existence prove that anyone who can't make ends meet without it is conclusively an idiot and a bad person who deserves financial ruin? You talk about people who use the EITC like they don't even need it in the first place. Let me highlight this:

"But when your budget doesn't allow for you to survive if you take those benefits out of the equation you've got a SERIOUS problem with money management. That's just a fact."

According to this, the following is true: Needing EITC benefits to make ends meet while being a single parent with only one full-time, minimum-wage job is financially equivalent to having poor spending habits.

The fact that you conclude by referring to the fable of "The Grasshopper and the Ant" proves - conclusively, funnily enough - that you simply view the tax-reliant poor as inherently inferior to yourself. If only they were the kind of person strong enough to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, right?

[edit] And I don't know where you're getting the idea that "Big Brother" has anything to do with giving poor people financial aid. Big Brother refers to a surveillance state, not a welfare state.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
No, it doesn't. CNTRL F of that quotation "Text Not Found" (except for your post)

Anybody who SLAVES THEMSELVES into the EITC is doing so because of poor spending habits. If you put the EITC into your budget as guaranteed income, and your spending doesn't leave enough leftover to potentially remove it from income, that's called a poor spending habit. What's so hard to understand abou that? You should never depend on the government to subsidize your lifestyle. You can use benefits to help you and provide an extra buffer- sure. But when your budget doesn't allow for you to survive if you take those benefits out of the equation you've got a SERIOUS problem with money management. That's just a fact. It has nothing to do with harping on the poor.

I personally know many poor families who do not DEPEND on the EITC. They do receive it, yes, but their budget doesn't include it. When they get it each year it's like an EXTRA 3000 that they can use towards whatever. I still disagree with the concept, but at least they're not being irresponsible and depending on it for survival. I also know some people who factor it into their family budget, and that's just idiocy. And I let them know whenever the subject comes up of taxes- that they shouldn't depend on that to survive and it could (and should) go away at any moment. They simply brush me off and think its far fetched it could ever go away. It's classic grasshopper and ant philosophy.


EDIT:

Raziaar how could you receive the EITC? You're obviously confused and need to do some more research about the subject. I wasn't aware you had children.

You're also mistaken in what I'm posting. Poor spending habits doesn't imply "living a high life" or anything like that. It simply means not living with a balanced budget. Period. Even if you only go $100 over your budget, you're using poor spending habits. If you create a FIRM budget with an emergency fund tucked away, you should not depend on the EITC. ENSLAVEMENT to the EITC means you DEPEND on it to get by. As I said, I know people who receive the EITC, but if they didn't they'd be okay too. It's the people who are eagerly awaiting February to come around so it's tax season to bail them out year after year that have a spending problem. Sure, bailed out once or twice is understandable. Enslaving yourself financially to big brother bailing you out is a recipe of disaster, and the reason many families never pull themselves out of poverty.

A BUDGET is listing all the money you bring in- your INCOME. Minus government subsidies or welfare. Your income only. Then you list your expenses monthly. You allocate a certain amount of your total income to those expenses. Whatever is left over is discretionary spending. If you're running a deficit each month, you've got a major spending problem and need to cut spending in order to get back within budget. Lots of people don't do this- they turn to payday loans or the government to bail them out perpetually. This is okay once in a blue moon. The EITC saving you one year is not enslavement. I'm talking about families who continually need this year after year and 10 years down the line are in the same situation with 0 improvement, in the same situation as before. They need to cut spending to the pure necessities. Which yes, means not having a life at all. You have to bring in money to support a lifestyle of fun and entertainment.

No where am I stating that these poor (and by these poor I mean the specific ones who are enslaved to gvt subsidies) can instantly become wealthy. But they CAN instantly begin living within a firm budget. Then any government subsidies are EXTRAS that help you breathe easier. If a person falls into crisis because they didn't get their government check then they have a serious problem with money management.

And stop taking money management or poor spending habits to mean "living it up" or "living richly" because it doesn't mean that. As I said numerous times, it means spending more than you bring in. You have to simply spend less than you bring in, period. Harsh, aint it?


Twisting my words or the meaning of the terms I'm using doesn't do anyone good. No one in this thread is harping on the poor. The entire time I've been railing against those that DEPEND on gvt subsidies. As I said- plenty of people who are poor don't DEPEND on them. They may qualify for and USE them, but they won't be f***ed if they suddenly went away.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep using this ****ing strong word ENSLAVEMENT, all bolded like. Please explain how people who apply for EITC are ENSLAVED.

You do know what slavery means, right?

Also, if you look up the last part of my post, I explained that the EITC probably wasn't what I was talking about that I had filed for. There was something else on the tax form(I'm not really all aware of what's on the tax forms at any given time) that I was talking about... and at any rate, me being mistaken on that changes absolutely nothing in what I said about other people.

What is with you wanting to rail on people who don't make enough money usually to make ends meet, that some extra income from one source or another(as long as it's not illegal) being used is such a bad thing? Do you also rail on charity recipients? Cause you know... those freeloading handout taking dregs who take charity...

I don't at all relate to or understand how you can be coming from where you are coming from. It's a monstrous mentality to me, personally.


Also... just a curiosity. Of all the poor families you say you personally know who do not "depend on the EITC". Did you ask them that? Did you ask them if they depend on the EITC or not? And I'm sure you know a lot more who do depend on the EITC, because as you say there are tons of them out there. For those families, did you ask them if they know that they are enslaving themselves because they apply for the EITC? Would you be willing to tell them that, and then hear them out on what they say about their OWN income and spending habits? I assure you... they won't say they are enslaved and they certainly won't have any of the number of negative things to say about themselves that you and the others who share your mindset would say about them. Why? Because they're normal, honest and hardworking people, just trying to make ends meet and filling out their taxes by the rule-book. They're people god dammit... and they live a hard life and they work HARD for what they presently have. They don't need to have shit thrown in their face and told that they are enslaving themselves and ridiculed for not having proper spending habits that would magically uplift them from their lot in life.
 
Enslavement to the EITC is the same concept as enslaving yourself to payday loans. You can harp on my terminology all you want but if you really don't understand what I'm trying to get across you're just playing dumb. Obviously I dont mean a "SLAVE" like the ancient hebrews. Come on now, dont nitpick little things, and take on my points. Simply getting the EITC doesnt mean youre slaved into it. As I said numerous times, factoring it into your budget year after year is. You have GOT to be prepared for those types of things to suddenly go away. And believe me its nothing on the poor- the same goes for the rich and middle class who year after year depend on the mortgage interest deduction to save them from owing income tax. People have got to budget without expecting to be bailed out.

Stigmata- poor spending habits and poor money management do not mean someone is an idiot, nor that they deserve anything terrible to happen to them- I never said that nor implied it. It doesnt change the fact that they're using poor spending habits. Good people often make poor decisions, that doesnt make them bad people. DEPENDING on the government to subsidize your budget is a poor financial decision that will keep people poor.

Per your example: A single parent making minimum wage can get by without slaving themself to the EITC. Now- the EITC can be a great RELIEF to them, but they can definately manage to survive without needing it. If they find themself in a situation where the EITC is not available one year and it devastates them & cannot pay bills then it's because of poor financial planning. Min wage after taxes comes out to $275 per week, $1100 per month. You can get a studio apartment, furnished, with cable and utilities included out here for $400 per month. That leaves $700 per month for groceries, clothes, and transport. Lets say you spend $30 per week on transportation. $580 for groceries, clothes, childcare etc. It's a barebones budget yes, but its a survivale budget. Now that the single parent has a budget, thats what they could do with no assistance and survive. Then they can use the EITC, food stamps, medicaid programs, etc etc to SUPPLEMENT their budget and breathe easier. Thats my entire point. The initial budget does not DEPEND on those programs- them receiving it makes it way easier and gives some breathing room, but if they suddenly one day went away the single parent with that budget could get by without starving and losing everything. The single parent that factors EITC, food stamps, and other things INTO their budget will caue extreme hardship for them and their child the day those go away, because they didnt budget for a world without them.

These things don't make people BAD people in any sense- theyre just extremely bad financial choices. Thats just a fact, its not an insult, its a wakeup call if anything and I definately hope more people make good financial choices for their future- its good for all of society.


I hope my above example finally lets you guys see what I'm trying to say. I don't hate on anybody FOR taking the EITC. It can help them out as a bonus to their income. I dont believe the program should exist, but thats a congressional/IRS matter, the blame doesnt lie in those who simply use an available program. People just need to make sure they dont factor those benefits INTO their budget, as (ive said numerous times) thats terrible money management and poor financial planning.

Ennui said:
I don't know what the **** you guys are talking about, but I'm glad you're back Rakurai. Seriously. We haven't had many conservative members with half a brain willing to argue in a while, usually they either give up or get pounded into submission. Makes things a lot more interesting to have someone around whose views are in most cases a direct counterpoint to the prevailing liberal mindset of the forum. It gets Stern all excited too.
Click to expand...
lol thanks. The EITC is basically pure free money you get each year if you make a low enough wage and have kids (between $1000 and $3500.) I'm just saying its poor financial planning to factor that into a budget and depend on it always being there, and I guess that makes me a monstruous thinker who hates the poor.
 
How do you know these families are sitting down and factoring the EITC into their income? That's just one great big assumption on your part. And don't toss up the old, "I know poor families who do factor it in." because I call bullshit on that... you're not asking those families if they do and you have no way of knowing if they do. It's a lousy assumption to make. You're basically assuming that all these people are factoring it into their income and just couldn't possibly cope without it. How on earth are you privy to that kind of personal information?

Is that really where your entire stance rests, that people are definitely factoring this into their income and wouldn't be able to survive without it because they hadn't been more conservative in their budgeting? Maybe if you could prove it I might be able to agree with you that those people are being a bit silly, but without any proof I'm not going to make the assumption that people practice such foolishness. Normal people aren't going to be factoring unknowns into their budget. I certainly didn't factor the $1000 in tax refunds I got from last year.

You're making all this big hullabaloo(funny word!) over information that you're not privy to about the financial practices of large swaths of Americans. Instead of making the assumption that people are supplementing their income with that money, you're viewing people in the worst possible light and assuming that they're being irresponsible with their money. Let me tell you, poor people can't afford to be irresponsible with their money and so most honest hardworking poor families are not irresponsible at all with their money. They stretch it as much as they possibly can.
 
Rakurai,

I don't see what you're trying to say, because what you're trying to say doesn't make any ****ing sense. Every single point you've made is a logical fallacy, absolutely riddled with compassionless disregard for anyone whose living situation doesn't exactly match some nebulous theoretical Poor Person who doesn't actually need financial benefits, making them Not Actually Poor In The First Goddamn Place. I don't give a shit if you think the program "shouldn't" exist, because we're talking about whether people need it. But you're so dead-set on defining tax benefits as some absurd form of theft and beggary that it's actually academically worthless to pursue any dialogue with you. I'll leave it to the rest of the forum to continue this debate if they want, because it's clear to me you have no intention of doing anything but blindly asserting your own views until everyone else stops talking.
 
Raziaar said:
How do you know these families are sitting down and factoring the EITC into their income? That's just one great big assumption on your part. And don't toss up the old, "I know poor families who do factor it in." because I call bullshit on that... you're not asking those families if they do and you have no way of knowing if they do. It's a lousy assumption to make. You're basically assuming that all these people are factoring it into their income and just couldn't possibly cope without it. How on earth are you privy to that kind of personal information?

Is that really where your entire stance rests, that people are definitely factoring this into their income and wouldn't be able to survive without it because they hadn't been more conservative in their budgeting? Maybe if you could prove it I might be able to agree with you that those people are being a bit silly, but without any proof I'm not going to make the assumption that people practice such foolishness. Normal people aren't going to be factoring unknowns into their budget. I certainly didn't factor the $1000 in tax refunds I got from last year.

You're making all this big hullabaloo(funny word!) over information that you're not privy to about the financial practices of large swaths of Americans. Instead of making the assumption that people are supplementing their income with that money, you're viewing people in the worst possible light and assuming that they're being irresponsible with their money. Let me tell you, poor people can't afford to be irresponsible with their money and so most honest hardworking poor families are not irresponsible at all with their money. They stretch it as much as they possibly can.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Many of my friends are this way. They've got multiple children and wait for the EITC to bail them out year after year. Do you really honestly believe that not many people depend on the EITC? You're putting far too much faith into people's ability to plan financially.

And you seem to forget how this entire discussion started in the first place. You should probably go back and read page 6 of the thread again, particularly post #81. This is where the discussion really started- I was just saying anyone who depends on the EITC is using very making very poor financial decisions and it's an example of money mismanagement. I went on to clarify that simply receiving it isn't money mismangement, but factoring it into your living expenses/budget IS. You're naive if you think a lot of people don't factor it into those things.

PLENTY of people factor in these benefits INTO their budget. You really are the mistaken one if you honestly believe large swaths of the recipients don't. And, as I said, it doesn't make them idiots or bad people- its just terrible financial decision making and planning. It's part of the reason generation after generation don't improve their financial family tree.



And Stigmata - there is no logical fallacy in stating that factoring the EITC or other government subsidies into your budget is poor financial planning. It's common sense. I really honestly don't understand how me stating that fact riles you two up so much. It's not a slam on people who receive it in the least. The real logical fallacies are the straw man arguements claiming I'm railing against poor people, calling them stupid, purposely misquoting me, or other things that have been implied in the past two pages. None of my posts, in the least, say such things. They've all pretty much repeated me stating that simply depending on the EITC is a bad decision.
 
Stigmata said:
Rakurai,

I don't see what you're trying to say, because what you're trying to say doesn't make any ****ing sense. Every single point you've made is a logical fallacy, absolutely riddled with compassionless disregard for anyone whose living situation doesn't exactly match some nebulous theoretical Poor Person who doesn't actually need financial benefits, making them Not Actually Poor In The First Goddamn Place. I don't give a shit if you think the program "shouldn't" exist, because we're talking about whether people need it. But you're so dead-set on defining tax benefits as some absurd form of theft and beggary that it's actually academically worthless to pursue any dialogue with you. I'll leave it to the rest of the forum to continue this debate if they want, because it's clear to me you have no intention of doing anything but blindly asserting your own views until everyone else stops talking.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to concur here. There is no longer any real substance to debate here.

I'll leave this here with a link and some snippets from it about the EITC and I'll go on the record as saying it's a pretty damn good thing. Oh and this was what I received on my tax return... I remember it being around $500, for a single worker with no children.

http://www.results.org/issues/us_po...opportunity_for_all/earned_income_tax_credit/

Congress originally created the tax credit legislation in 1975, in part to offset the burden of social security payroll taxes. EITC is designed to “make work pay.” It rewards low-wage work by decreasing the taxes that low-wage workers pay on their earnings and by supplementing their wages. The intention is to move a family with a full-time minimum-wage worker above the poverty line, so as to avoid raising children in poverty.

The EITC is the largest poverty-reduction program in the U.S. According to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the EITC lifted an estimated 6.6 million people out of poverty in 2009, including 3.3 million children. The poverty rate among children would have been nearly one-third higher without the EITC. The EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other single program or category of programs.
Click to expand...

Studies have shown that the EITC generates large decreases in poverty and substantial increases in employment, as well as decreasing the number of single parents receiving cash welfare. It also produces a “multiplier effect”; it is estimated that every $1 paid out in the EITC generates $1.50 to $2.00 in local economic activity. The EITC does not generally affect eligibility for Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), SNAP benefits (food stamps), or low-income housing and the cost of administering the program in proportion to claims paid is less than one percent. Unlike other tax provisions, the EITC has generally been supported by both progressives and conservatives because of its anti-poverty, incentive-to-work structure.
Click to expand...
 
The EITC is pure wealth redistribution. I'll go on record as saying this is a bad idea who's effect is to keep families in the poorhouse.

I'll leave you with some food for thought about the value they claim is pumped back into the economy by the EITC:

If standard economic theory is worth its salt at all, the EITC must surely decrease the price of labor unless there is absolutely no unemployment in the economy. In effect, the taxpayer subsidizes businesses into creating more, albeit crummier-paying, jobs. But the big infusion of tax dollars required to pay for the program might negate the benefit of that extra employment. If one has no moral reason for preferring that everybody must be kept working all the time, it might be cheaper to institute higher minimum wages, and redeploy part of the tax dollars we would otherwise spend on unemployment benefits for those who are rendered unemployed by the higher minimum wage.

Another way of thinking about it is this: With the EITC, jobs that do not create enough value for the employers to pay the employee the market wage are subsidized by the taxpayer. Therefore it is partially a circuitous way of making busywork for people. We might as well have them breaking rocks.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Acurt1982
The Success and Failure of Silence: Gordon Freeman in 'Half Life' and 'Half Life 2'
Replies
1
Views
2K
Chowder
Chowder
CptStern
Ted Nugent: I will be either in jail or dead if Obama is re-elected
Replies
9
Views
3K
Tyguy
Tyguy
CptStern
Congressman Todd akin" Abortionists perform abortions on women who are not even pregnant
Replies
6
Views
4K
ríomhaire
ríomhaire
The Monkey
Obama conducts "one of the greatest attacks on working people in U.S. history"
Replies
26
Views
2K
Kadayi
Kadayi
Sulkdodds
Obama releases birth certificate
Replies
36
Views
3K
Krynn72
Krynn72
Back
Top