Take from poor give to rich

[No Limit]

This image is from the center for american progress which outlines republican plans for the 2011 budget. You couldn't possibly have a clearer example of taking from the poor and giving to the rich:

Obama has already agreed to about half of these cuts and will probably agree to many more since trying to get republicans to like him, no matter how many times they bite him, is what he does best.

 

[Krynn72]

This is why I don't have any national pride.

 

[Vegeta897]

This is why I'm rich.

 

[Chrash]

This is why i get confused by politics/politicians.

 

[Warped]

This is why I'm on welfare

 

[StarBob]

This is why i get confused by politics/politicians.

It's a fairly simple situation.

All politicians are controlled by interest groups. Some of them represent big companies and some represent organizations of people. They all fund people to get elected.

The ones that fund republicans do so for to get rich people tax breaks and maintain big business. The ones that fund democrats do so to leverage themselves into positions to get make money. In the end - the amount of money interest groups pay to get and keep people in office pales in comparison to what they make from manipulating government regulations through the process. If you seek to change these things, not only will you miss out on tons of campaign money, but if you do manage to get elected, you're facing an ass load of people who love the easy money and will sacrifice any means the citizens have in order to maintain it.

So within this system the majority is absent-mindedly ruled by the super rich ultra minority. It's why people who make a ten times more than I every year are only taxed 10% more. And why people who make a hundred times more than me are taxed the same amount. The saddest part of it all is that the people who are the absolute richest in the country and contribute far FAR more than the majority of Americans are the ones that have the most control over how much they're taxed.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The language in the title is a bit absurd.

Cutting welfare programs isn't taking from the poor if they didn't own the money used to pay for it. Likewise tax breaks aren't giving to the rich, it's allowing the rich to keep money they already own (whether the earned that money, farely is another matter) . Although I think the rich should pay higher taxes, that kind of language is misleading.

 

[No Limit]

How is that misleading?

Because they say there is a budget crisis they are cutting programs meant to help the poor. In return they are using the money they get from these programs and handing it out to rich people and corporations in the form of additional tax breaks they don't currently have.

What title would you put on that?

 

[Sheepo]

Because it implies that money is being taken from the poor that is given to the rich? The rich are getting tax breaks. The poor are having their programs cut. Yeah, one is benefiting and one is losing, but the title makes it sound as though the poor own this money (rather than having it given to them) and it's being taken from them and given to the rich (rather than having less money taken from them by the government). It's not the same money. It's not as if someone was like, okay, we can justify these tax cuts because now the poor don't need as much money. If we were operating on a balanced budget, yeah, maybe I could see that as making sense.

The tax breaks are ****ing ridiculous, though, yep.

 

[Krynn72]

But the poor do own the money because its taxpayer money. Poor people pay taxes too, so they pay for these programs.

And it IS giving to the rich, because these are tax breaks. Its not the normal tax rate that they agree to paying by living here, its the government specifically saying "nah, you can keep this money you owe us. You need it more than we do."

 

[Sheepo]

It's not as though those programs are listed in the constitution. They pay taxes, but if these programs are axed, they're axed. They aren't legally entitled to these programs if these programs aren't law. If paying taxes entitles you to those programs then you should recieve it regardless of your income. Not recieving funding is not theft.

 

[lord_raken]

I agree with Sheepo.

I also think that giving that many tax cuts is probably not very fair. We are ALL going to have to make sacrifices if we are to get our budget under control. An out of control budget will kill this nation much faster than a lack of social programs or tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

[No Limit]

It's not as though those programs are listed in the constitution. They pay taxes, but if these programs are axed, they're axed. They aren't legally entitled to these programs if these programs aren't law. If paying taxes entitles you to those programs then you should recieve it regardless of your income. Not recieving funding is not theft.

Take one example listed here, food stamps. I pay taxes every day, I never collected food stamps. But as I pay those taxes I assume that if I ever loose my job for any reason those food stamps will be there until I can get back on my feet.

What the republicans (with Obama eager to help them) are doing is taking that program that I have been paying for since I started working many years ago and cutting it. They are then taking that money and giving it to rich people who otherwise would not have this money. I would not be getting a tax break, even though they are cutting a program I might eventually benefit from if some shit were to happen.

I think the common misconception is that people on welfare are always on welfare. I don't have any stats to pull up but I just don't buy that. I would hate nothing more than to live on a few hundred dollars a week which the government provides me with. I think most people feel the same way and do everything they can to get out of that situation (even if a number of them never do). Certainly this doesn't apply to everyone but I think it would apply to most. And when they do get out of that (or before they get in to it) they pay their taxes just as everyone else.

 

[Sheepo]

I don't really disagree with you at all, except the way you describe the money changing hands from the poor to the rich. You make the government sound like Scrooge McDuck. The country is in massive debt. The rich are getting some tax breaks. Some programs are being cut. I don't like either, and I certainly disagree with the former, but it's really not 'taking and giving' as though these items are intentionally connected. It's not that simple. If we had either a dictator or a balanced budget, I could see where you were coming from, but we don't.

 

[No Limit]

Yes, the country is in massive debt, which is why these tax breaks don't make any sense. If they were only cutting programs for the poor without taking that money and giving tax breaks to the rich I wouldn't have titled this thread the way I did. But the ****ed up thing is that's exactly what is happening.

I know you say you don't agree with the way I describe the money changing hands but I'm not sure I understand why you disagree. I do pay for these programs. I don't know what percentage food stamps take up but my federal tax deductions each paycheck overall are not insignificant (nor is state, medicaid, medicare, social security, and unemployment). By paying those taxes I have an expectation of a safety net should anything go wrong, as I'm sure is the case with anyone that pays taxes. So when the government cuts programs I might benefit from and I have been paying for throughout my entire life they are taking that money from me in the form of benefits. Which you could argue is sometimes necessary and you could be 100% right in that. But when they take that money and they use it to give tax breaks to rich people they are giving rich people money they wouldn't otherwise have (my money).

I do understand where you guys are coming from but I think you're just splitting hairs when it comes to the title of this thread. I think it's dead on.

 

[The Monkey]

In a way it is giving to the rich because it cuts down on certain programs that sought to remedy (in part) the structural inequalities of laissez-faire capitalism, that in turn allowed for the ruling classes to accumulate wealth in the first place.

 

[Sheepo]

Splitting hairs is exactly what we're doing. I do think what's going on is wrong. I really am just arguing your conception of how this money is going from A to B, and how deliberately it's done. Also, I could've sworn the title was different, don't remember it being so caveman-ish. Your expectation argument is interesting though, I've never really considered it that way.

 

[Stigmata]

It's stealing from the poor because money is merely a symbol for a product, service, or resource, and this money was earmarked pending budget changes that didn't destroy social services and gut corporate tax revenue.

Or, to put it another way - If someone removes a man's heart, would you split hairs over whether he lost his heart or his ability to move blood to his brain? Or would you instead find a way to give him a new one, or a way to prevent other peoples' hearts from being removed in the future?

 

[No Limit]

It really boils down to what you think your taxes entitle you to. I think things like food stamps, unemployment, heating assistance, etc are all benefits I pay for when I pay my taxes. When those programs are cut they are cutting benefits I feel I am entitled to should I ever actually need them.

That's why I characterize it the way I do. They took benefits I paid for and I might need one day (eventhough hopefully I never will) and they gave those benefits to rich people in the form of tax breaks. Money these rich people would otherwise not have gotten.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The things is, that the other side of the political spectrum views taxation as theft, and welfare as entitlements.

In theory the poor get more money from the government than they pay in, otherwise there would be no point in entitlements. So the system gives to them. The middle class probably pay in more than then get in return, especially since Reagan stole all the social security money.

Corporations should pay much higher taxes, because a corporation isn't just a business, it's a business with borderline legal immunity backed up by the government. The limited liabilty company should have gone extinct with the east india company.

 

[Doomination]

should be titled something like "giving less to the poor, and taking less from the rich"

etc

 

[comradesean]

Because arguing over how something is titled is more important than the actual material being discussed these days.

 

[Escaep]

They should take the poor and give them to the rich!

 

[Qonfused]

This is why, this is why, this is why I'm hot.

Oh we're done doing that now.

 

[Matorbogl]

The Republican and soon to be Obama budget for 2011 seems pretty logical to me. You kick the bums off their entitlement programs and they are forced back to work. Work that exists because of tax cuts that helped lift the heavy burden off the job creators.

America is saved again thanks to [strike]Voodoo[/strike] Supply Side Economics.

 

[Top Secret]

Country is in massive debt. Shouldn't taxes for the rich be increased by any logical measurement?

 

[No Limit]

The Republican and soon to be Obama budget for 2011 seems pretty logical to me. You kick the bums off their entitlement programs and they are forced back to work. Work that exists because of tax cuts that helped lift the heavy burden off the job creators.

America is saved again thanks to [strike]Voodoo[/strike] Supply Side Economics.

Yes, tax cuts are always the clear solution to economic problems.

Just look at all the jobs Bush created with his tax cuts. And just look at all the jobs Clinton lost when he increased them (slightly):

Clinton: Jan 93 to Dec. 2000, 22.8 million jobs created
Bush 43: Jan 2000 to Oct. 2008, 4.4 million jobs created

Your lack of historic perspective amazes me.

You should also go look up the gap between the rich and the poor and what effect taxes have on that, really intersting stuff.

Country is in massive debt. Shouldn't taxes for the rich be increased by any logical measurement?

The far more logicial thing is to give rich people even more tax breaks (around a trillion dollars over 10 years) and take the money used for those tax breaks from social safety nets all of us peasants have been paying in to since we started working.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I think you missed the word Voodoo.

 

[No Limit]

I think I got Maestro confused with Matorbogl. Oops. You guys shouldn't have names this similar.

 

[repiV]

In the UK, the government spends around 53% of the entire nation's GDP. It's obscene. And I completely fail to see the benefit of paying such astronomical amounts of my income to the state, other than to those who live off the state.

Most people aren't even particularly well off in the UK. Double the average wage would serve you a pretty comfortable living for a single person, and even then you'd struggle to buy the smallest of homes...since, down here at least, an average family home costs about ten times the average salary. So why then do we all spend half the year working in order to support those who don't?

Tax, like state power, is one of those things which gets increased so gradually and through ever more obscure channels over the years, that nobody realises what's happened until it's already too late.

I filled my bike up yesterday...11 litres of petrol, and it cost me over £17. About £12 of which is tax. Takes the utter piss. Glad I can walk everywhere now and it only comes out of the garage for fun or visiting people.

 

[No Limit]

Your gas taxes are probably way too high. But if you want to start cutting stuff where do you want to cut? Want to start at the NHS? Lots of bums getting free healthcare, can't have that.

 

[repiV]

I have no idea where all the money goes. The amount of tax taken per annum has doubled in the last 13 years (yes...doubled), and yet, with no noticeable increase in services...and if anything, a lower quality of life. I seem to recall reading not so long ago that the state gives around £3m a year to anti-death penalty charities in the USA. Fantastic, my money gets spent on lobbying groups for domestic political issues in other countries.

The majority of the money must get spent on waste, bureaucracy and corruption. Otherwise, we'd probably notice all these wonderful things that extra tax money is buying every year.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I'm not sure how widespread it is but I've heard about this happening from a number of people working in government in both NI and in England, that people in managerial positions will hire people to do thier work for them, while they sit on their arse and do jack shit. I've even had a temp job which was basically doing the admin work that someone else was being employed to do.

 

[Solaris]

Northern Ireland's a special case though. And I'm pretty sure a large amount of the 'missing money' repiV is talking about has actually gone/is going to Northern Ireland. It's a huge drain on the national budget and something like half the work force work for the state. Want to know what stopped the troubles? The British Tax payer. Paying billions so some deluded Irishmen who want to be British can still run 'their wee country'.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Norhtern Ireland does take more money than it generates, but it's not that much a very small percentage of the budget. Pretty much all of the UK for that matter other then the south east of England, where the UKs main income, finance resides, is a net tax burden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_budget

You might want to look at the budget before blaming it on NI.