06-29-11 06:39 AM
64 123
tools
  1. blue81to's Avatar
    This guy doesn't even feel bad about continuing to use food stamps... So... he is a millionaire, even after taxes, and still takes the government handout. Like sandman says, I don't know how he sleeps at night. Whoever is in charge of that food stamp program should be fired.



    AUBURN, Mich. — A man who won $2 million on a Michigan lottery show has told TV5 that he still uses food stamps.
    Leroy Fick of Bay County admitted he still swipes the electronic card at stores, nearly a year after winning a jackpot on “Make Me Rich!” He told TV5′s Bill Walsh that more than half the prize went to taxes.
    Fick said the Department of Human Services told him he could continue to use the card, which is paid with Michigan tax dollars.
    “If you’re going to … try to make me feel bad, you aren’t going to do it,” said Fick.
    [...]
    DHS spokeswoman Gisgie Gendreau said under federal guidelines, if a person receives a lump-sum payment, the winnings are not counted as income.
    The government took almost half of his winnings. He's paid way more taxes on what he won than what he's using in food stamps. What about all of the hard earned money that he won that went to taxes? It's two sides to every coin.

    Maybe people should thank him for contributing nearly half of his $2 million to help educate people's children and pick up their trash and pay policemen's salaries.

    How many people here has paid $1 million in taxes in the past year?
    Last edited by blue81to; 06-04-11 at 07:15 PM. Reason: One more thing
    06-04-11 07:09 PM
  2. SCrid2000's Avatar
    Oh, how sad, he only got 1 MILLION - I can see why he needs food stamps still.
    Seriously?
    06-05-11 12:26 AM
  3. the_sandman_454's Avatar
    The government took almost half of his winnings. He's paid way more taxes on what he won than what he's using in food stamps. What about all of the hard earned money that he won that went to taxes? It's two sides to every coin.

    Maybe people should thank him for contributing nearly half of his $2 million to help educate people's children and pick up their trash and pay policemen's salaries.

    How many people here has paid $1 million in taxes in the past year?
    How much the Government took is irrelevant. The fact is, he still has a million dollars. He has sufficient money that he can invest it and live reasonably off the interest. Or get himself an education, or whatever else he may need to do to become gainfully employed.

    He did not even work for this money, but rather he won it in a game of chance, which he probably bought tickets for frequently using taxpayer money, likely trading his EBT card to someone else for cash to buy things the card didn't allow him to.

    Public assistance is only for those who need a quick hand out of the gutter, not for those who have a million dollars in assets.
    06-05-11 10:29 AM
  4. trucky's Avatar
    * Hopefully the poster will understand that this is a thoughtful response to statements made and is not in any way directed at the poster. Healthy discussion can be a challenge but tends to be educational for all involved. *

    The government took almost half of his winnings.
    That's what happens to most anyone who has an income of this amount. Pretty sad ehhh? The hardest workers end up having to give half of every dollar they earn to the government, who, in turn will pass it out to people like this guy who don't need it and just take it because they can.

    He's paid way more taxes on what he won than what he's using in food stamps.
    And how is this relevant? He won the money, taxes are due on your income, this is the law as it stands now. Do you really think food stamps should be passed out to anyone who can get them? Or, maybe they should be reserved for those who truly need them? How long do you think the food stamp program could survive if every millionaire took advantage of a broken system like this guy is doing?

    What about all of the hard earned money that he won that went to taxes? It's two sides to every coin.
    Hard earned? He wanders down to the liquor store, buys a lottery ticket, goes home, sits in the recliner and waits for the numbers to be drawn. I wish I could work so hard.

    Maybe people should thank him for contributing nearly half of his $2 million to help educate people's children and pick up their trash and pay policemen's salaries.
    Maybe we should! but then, maybe we should be thanking every person in this country who earns this kind of income, through true hard work, instead of always trying to vilify them and try to squeeze out even more from them. The business men and women and entrepreneuers are the ones who have been making the most significant contributions to keeping this fine country afloat, despite the pitiful attempts of the government to try to do otherwise.

    How many people here has paid $1 million in taxes in the past year?
    Anyone who earned $2 million or more like this guy...
    06-06-11 07:24 AM
  5. pixel8rberry's Avatar
    Actually, most of those who do earn seven figure income, end up paying less than most of us. Do you know why? Because there are such things as tax loopholes, write-offs and business expenses. Current laws make it very easy to find ways to "justify" not paying the full amount owed.
    06-06-11 09:08 AM
  6. the_sandman_454's Avatar
    Actually, most of those who do earn seven figure income, end up paying less than most of us. Do you know why? Because there are such things as tax loopholes, write-offs and business expenses. Current laws make it very easy to find ways to "justify" not paying the full amount owed.
    How is it, then that the top 1% of earners still manage to pay the biggest chunk of taxes? Have you some information regarding said loopholes? Which ones do they use?

    This is an example of how unfair the tax system is, the fact that there are any deductions, writeoffs, or anything. Slash government spending and institute a tax of a certain dollar amount for everyone, and let's see how well that goes over.

    That tax system would provide incentive for everyone to do beter/work harder/be more productive. The people at the bottom would still gripe about how unfair such a tax is, but that is better for two reasons. If every person in this country pays the same in taxes, everyone has some skin in the game.

    Since the lowest income folks (the ones who traditionally want to tax businesses, the "rich", etc more) pay a bigger chunk of their income in taxes than the rich it might provide them more incentive to stop voting for politicians who want to raise taxes and squander the money. These are traditionally the individuals who vote for more free stuff at the expense of those with more money.

    That is part of the problem with the current tax code. It is a patchwork of many different laws and exceptions, as well as many different taxes and fees. That needs to go away, and we need to figure out how to get rid of productive people paying higher taxes.

    I want property taxes, and other taxes and fees to go away in favor of one tax you pay yearly. I prefer it to be on the spending side versus the earning side since penalizing people for being more productive and earning more will eventually cause people to give up and stop trying, which is, of course, what this thread is sort of about.

    I realize that we need a tax system in order to provide for the military and certain other key programs that the Government must see to. We can cut trillions of wasteful spending out of the budget though and let more people keep more of the money we've earned. That is the only way to truly turn the economy around and get it firing on all cylinders again rather than sputtering along.
    06-06-11 09:43 AM
  7. SCrid2000's Avatar
    Lol, I don't think it's feasible to do it that fast - we're talking about thousands of government workers laid off overnight, the economy wouldn't take that.
    But yes, there do need to be large reductions, albeit over time.
    And a flat rate tax sounds excellent to me, although with current government spending it would probably be around 40%

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-06-11 09:49 AM
  8. trucky's Avatar
    Actually, most of those who do earn seven figure income, end up paying less than most of us. Do you know why? Because there are such things as tax loopholes, write-offs and business expenses. Current laws make it very easy to find ways to "justify" not paying the full amount owed.
    Thank God for loopholes, write-offs and business expenses.

    The disproportionate tax rates as one works harder and earns more would be even more unbearable without those. Every business person deserves to keep as much of their own money as possible. We give it to our government and they use for great things like increasing the limousine fleet by 73% in the past two years. I'm all for a flat tax or some sort of consumption tax. Make it fair for all, and let everyone take part in funding our government in a reasonable way.
    06-06-11 10:01 AM
  9. pixel8rberry's Avatar
    How is it, then that the top 1% of earners still manage to pay the biggest chunk of taxes? Have you some information regarding said loopholes? Which ones do they use?

    This is an example of how unfair the tax system is, the fact that there are any deductions, writeoffs, or anything. Slash government spending and institute a tax of a certain dollar amount for everyone, and let's see how well that goes over.

    That tax system would provide incentive for everyone to do beter/work harder/be more productive. The people at the bottom would still gripe about how unfair such a tax is, but that is better for two reasons. If every person in this country pays the same in taxes, everyone has some skin in the game.

    Since the lowest income folks (the ones who traditionally want to tax businesses, the "rich", etc more) pay a bigger chunk of their income in taxes than the rich it might provide them more incentive to stop voting for politicians who want to raise taxes and squander the money. These are traditionally the individuals who vote for more free stuff at the expense of those with more money.

    That is part of the problem with the current tax code. It is a patchwork of many different laws and exceptions, as well as many different taxes and fees. That needs to go away, and we need to figure out how to get rid of productive people paying higher taxes.

    I want property taxes, and other taxes and fees to go away in favor of one tax you pay yearly. I prefer it to be on the spending side versus the earning side since penalizing people for being more productive and earning more will eventually cause people to give up and stop trying, which is, of course, what this thread is sort of about.

    I realize that we need a tax system in order to provide for the military and certain other key programs that the Government must see to. We can cut trillions of wasteful spending out of the budget though and let more people keep more of the money we've earned. That is the only way to truly turn the economy around and get it firing on all cylinders again rather than sputtering along.
    You are right about the system designed for what seems is a penalizing instead of being fair.

    But I wasn't talking about the actual monetary value, when comparing amount of taxes paid. I was referring to the income received/taxes paid ratio. Large earners pay out taxes the same way we do, but the ratio of their paid tax is much lower when compared to those who get it deducted from the paycheck every week (or two weeks). There are also loopholes for large property owners, that own million dollar properties and end up paying NOTHING in property taxes, when you have to pay taxes on your $250K house or lose it. It was on the news here, in Georgia, just a few days ago.

    There is so much backwardness in the way the taxes are deducted, that it doesn't make any sense at all.

    Let me give you a few examples, real life, not imagined:

    A single person, with one child, was employed, had taxes taken out of their paycheck for one year - paid $4,000+/- in taxes; received back from the gov - $3,500.

    Next year that person was unemployed, has not contributed any taxes, filed tax return for the few months that they worked at the beginning of the year - their tax return was $5459 <- this math doesn't make any sense. That person is not on any welfare, so I don't know if that makes any difference during taxes.

    Another person, also with kids, when employed, has paid on average $5500-$6,000 a year in taxes - tax return was about $300-$400 (ok not bad, at least something was returned, right?)

    Then the person lost their job and has become self-employed, but still managed to earn almost the same amount. No taxes were taken out of the pay checks, as the person worked under 10-99. Taxes were prepared at the end of the year - that person has paid $260 in owed taxes, and that person's tax return was $4950. - cool math, no?

    I used to work for a company where the owner preferred having contract workers because it was a benefit for him - an expense write-off at tax time. At the same time, those contracted 10-99 employees were getting the benefit of writing off a lot more expenses, while not being any different from W2 employees. Being a contractor, you can write off your lunch expenses, your car expenses (usage and maintenance to certain extent), your electronics, your cell phone bill, etc. While the W2 employee has very similar expenses, but doesn't get the same benefit.

    There has to be some kind of balance, and all classes of society should contribute a fair amount towards the community. But currently the burden is uneven and there are too many loopholes. No, you shouldn't be taxed more just because you are successful. But the ratio has to be fair. And just because the working class doesn't make $100K/year, it doesn't mean they are not a productive member of society.

    In the perfect society, before we fix the taxes, we would fix the drain that is the welfare system. Then, turn to the government and thin the herd of politicians, set up their pay according to their activity. But that's in a perfect society...
    06-06-11 12:24 PM
  10. the_sandman_454's Avatar
    It amazes me that some folks like to brag about how many jobs that have been created lately, when a big chunk of those have been government jobs. Do these people not understand that government jobs are a drain on the economy, not a positive for the economy in any sense of the word?

    The more government jobs we "create", the higher the taxes need to be or the more loans we need to take out to pay for that. Money that businesses could otherwise use to expand or improve themselves will go to higher taxes as a result and productivity suffers.

    It would be chaos for a little while, but I think many would be surprised how fast things would straighten out once we take the tax burden away from businesses, investors, and other productive entities/people. The economy would be off like a rocket, once people were sure the government wasn't just joking with them about it.

    Those government employees with any ability or ambition would easily find a place in the instantly growing private sector. Those without motivation or ability are in for a rude awakening, but they need it. I'm sure sick of paying good money for a bunch of folks who are in it just to get a paycheck and a good retirement without giving us the work we're paying them for.

    Even if the overall rate had to be around 40%, that is good to me because it puts a bigger pinch on those demanding more government services, and should make them less likely to demand such services if their wallet takes a direct hit when they do.

    Of course, that's not the "socially responsible" thing to do, but I think I'm alright with that.

    In other news, I am excited to see that Florida will be requiring drug testing for folks taking public assistance. I hope more states follow suit, Michigan included. Additionally, I would like to see mandatory weekly community service hours for everyone on public assistance. It doesn't have to be much, maybe 16 hours per week. Just so we get something back out of the deal.
    06-06-11 12:34 PM
  11. trucky's Avatar
    You are right about the system designed for what seems is a penalizing instead of being fair.

    There has to be some kind of balance, and all classes of society should contribute a fair amount towards the community. But currently the burden is uneven and there are too many loopholes. No, you shouldn't be taxed more just because you are successful. But the ratio has to be fair. And just because the working class doesn't make $100K/year, it doesn't mean they are not a productive member of society.

    In the perfect society, before we fix the taxes, we would fix the drain that is the welfare system. Then, turn to the government and thin the herd of politicians, set up their pay according to their activity. But that's in a perfect society...
    I'd vote for you
    pixel8rberry likes this.
    06-06-11 12:34 PM
  12. the_sandman_454's Avatar
    You are right about the system designed for what seems is a penalizing instead of being fair.

    But I wasn't talking about the actual monetary value, when comparing amount of taxes paid. I was referring to the income received/taxes paid ratio. Large earners pay out taxes the same way we do, but the ratio of their paid tax is much lower when compared to those who get it deducted from the paycheck every week (or two weeks). There are also loopholes for large property owners, that own million dollar properties and end up paying NOTHING in property taxes, when you have to pay taxes on your $250K house or lose it. It was on the news here, in Georgia, just a few days ago.

    There is so much backwardness in the way the taxes are deducted, that it doesn't make any sense at all.

    Let me give you a few examples, real life, not imagined:

    A single person, with one child, was employed, had taxes taken out of their paycheck for one year - paid $4,000+/- in taxes; received back from the gov - $3,500.

    Next year that person was unemployed, has not contributed any taxes, filed tax return for the few months that they worked at the beginning of the year - their tax return was $5459 <- this math doesn't make any sense. That person is not on any welfare, so I don't know if that makes any difference during taxes.

    Another person, also with kids, when employed, has paid on average $5500-$6,000 a year in taxes - tax return was about $300-$400 (ok not bad, at least something was returned, right?)

    Then the person lost their job and has become self-employed, but still managed to earn almost the same amount. No taxes were taken out of the pay checks, as the person worked under 10-99. Taxes were prepared at the end of the year - that person has paid $260 in owed taxes, and that person's tax return was $4950. - cool math, no?

    I used to work for a company where the owner preferred having contract workers because it was a benefit for him - an expense write-off at tax time. At the same time, those contracted 10-99 employees were getting the benefit of writing off a lot more expenses, while not being any different from W2 employees. Being a contractor, you can write off your lunch expenses, your car expenses (usage and maintenance to certain extent), your electronics, your cell phone bill, etc. While the W2 employee has very similar expenses, but doesn't get the same benefit.

    There has to be some kind of balance, and all classes of society should contribute a fair amount towards the community. But currently the burden is uneven and there are too many loopholes. No, you shouldn't be taxed more just because you are successful. But the ratio has to be fair. And just because the working class doesn't make $100K/year, it doesn't mean they are not a productive member of society.

    In the perfect society, before we fix the taxes, we would fix the drain that is the welfare system. Then, turn to the government and thin the herd of politicians, set up their pay according to their activity. But that's in a perfect society...
    I agree with most of that, particularly the part about taxes are currently unfairly collected, and the idea that even folks who earn lower incomes are still productive.

    If they're gainfully employed and working to the best of their ability, then yes, they're being productive.

    The idea I take issue with is that nearly 50% of the population doesn't pay income taxes yet still collect "refunds" and tend to demand more government services/handouts than the other 50% who have to foot the bill for all of that.

    Actually, it is more accurate to say that I take issue with those who feel they're entitled to various services while demanding everyone else foot the bill for it. This isn't an income issue, this is an attitude/moral code issue. It just seems that the cancer that is the entitlement mentality tends to be more prevalent in the lower income brackets.

    Some friends' relatives illustrate this sharply every time we go someplace with them. Never offer to pay fuel/vehicle rental/will sit there and let you pick up the tab without even offering to get their share or buy your meal since you paid for the rest of the trip.

    I try to avoid my friends' relatives as much as possible, but it isn't always possible since I like my friends, who we're always fighting for posession of the check at the restaurants to see who can get our card in the thing first. These are the people I prefer to be around, and the people this country needs more of: those who not only don't expect others to pay their way but are quite opposed to the idea.
    Last edited by the_sandman_454; 06-06-11 at 12:57 PM.
    06-06-11 12:54 PM
  13. highjakker's Avatar
    what we need to do is-

    #1- bring ALL of our troops HOME!!

    #a- stop sending foreign aid!

    secondly- stop buying oil from other countries, which also includes stop sending billions to fund other countries off shore oil drilling research and invest that money into our own off shore drilling!

    B- cut back welfare (crackdown on it)

    firstly- take control of our borders. illegals are an economic threat to our society. of course they do the jobs no one else wants to do but as soon as you start mandating those kind of jobs that no one wants to do to those receiving welfare we'll have that void filled.

    and another thing- legalize pot!
    06-06-11 04:17 PM
  14. blue81to's Avatar
    Actually, most of those who do earn seven figure income, end up paying less than most of us. Do you know why? Because there are such things as tax loopholes, write-offs and business expenses. Current laws make it very easy to find ways to "justify" not paying the full amount owed.
    I'm not a multimillionaire but a lot of those write-offs are legitimate. There have been times that I've lost money on a particular job. I shouldn't have to pay tax on gross if the net is far less. Some industries have more expenses than others.

    I think sometimes people under appreciate how much big businesses and rich people contribute to society. Like, when people drink tap water that's not contaminated with E coli. Do they say "Thanks McDonald's and Starbucks for paying your taxes so I don't die."?


    That's what happens to most anyone who has an income of this amount. Pretty sad ehhh? The hardest workers end up having to give half of every dollar they earn to the government, who, in turn will pass it out to people like this guy who don't need it and just take it because they can.
    What if he was a business executive who earned $2 million. His accountant would advice him of what his rights are and what resources are available to him. Wouldn't you expect him to take advantage of it?

    It's like the bank bailout when the government volunteered to give them billions of dollars. Should they had said "Oh, NO! We cant take this money. It would be immoral."?

    Hard earned? He wanders down to the liquor store, buys a lottery ticket, goes home, sits in the recliner and waits for the numbers to be drawn. I wish I could work so hard.
    From your tune it sound like you're implying he's somehow unworthy of the money he earned. That seems a bit elitist to me.

    what we need to do is-

    #1- bring ALL of our troops HOME!!

    #a- stop sending foreign aid!

    secondly- stop buying oil from other countries, which also includes stop sending billions to fund other countries off shore oil drilling research and invest that money into our own off shore drilling!

    B- cut back welfare (crackdown on it)

    firstly- take control of our borders. illegals are an economic threat to our society. of course they do the jobs no one else wants to do but as soon as you start mandating those kind of jobs that no one wants to do to those receiving welfare we'll have that void filled.

    and another thing- legalize pot!
    Bringing ALL of the troops home would definitely compromise American economic interest and security.

    Foreign aid isn't killing the economy.

    I'm not so big on anti-illegal immigration. A lot of my friends and coworkers have been or still are illegals. They're not what's causing the economic problems that America has now. I have a few ideas about human migration in general. I think it should happen naturally to a certain extent, irrespective of the wishes of the current governments. A lot of migrant workers don't set up permanent residence in the country they work in. There's a difference to illegals who intend to stay permanently and those who are just here for work. I'm not supportive of cracking down on either.

    Even with more drilling off shore in USA it wouldn't substitute for the volume that is imported from other countries.

    I think the federal reserve bank needs to be modified.
    Last edited by blue81to; 06-18-11 at 08:58 PM. Reason: another thing about migration
    06-18-11 08:46 PM
  15. the_sandman_454's Avatar
    I'm not a multimillionaire but a lot of those write-offs are legitimate. There have been times that I've lost money on a particular job. I shouldn't have to pay tax on gross if the net is far less. Some industries have more expenses than others.

    I think sometimes people under appreciate how much big businesses and rich people contribute to society. Like, when people drink tap water that's not contaminated with E coli. Do they say "Thanks McDonald's and Starbucks for paying your taxes so I don't die."?
    Socialists definitely underappreciate businessmen, inventors, corporations, and other ambitious/successful people and entities. They despise them in fact, except when it comes time for another round of looting/mooching. The more they can steal from those who have earned it, the happier the socialists are.


    What if he was a business executive who earned $2 million. His accountant would advice him of what his rights are and what resources are available to him. Wouldn't you expect him to take advantage of it?

    It's like the bank bailout when the government volunteered to give them billions of dollars. Should they had said "Oh, NO! We cant take this money. It would be immoral."?
    The government had a hand in causing the mess, but that's beside the point. The government had no business propping up private companies. That is not why we have a government. Companies can succeed or fail on their own merit and do best without government interference or intervention.

    A reasonable person/entity does not seek unearned benefits. When the government has to steal from others to give to you, that isn't right in any sense.

    Bringing ALL of the troops home would definitely compromise American economic interest and security.
    I agree, but a portion of them do need to come home to establish a military controlled southern border. We cannot have both security and a border anybody can just sneak across whenever they want. Mine fields, fences, or whatever else can be deployed to seal the border can and do need to be used.

    Foreign aid isn't killing the economy.
    Sure it is. Here's the deal. The government is spending more than it is taking in via taxes. Part of this defecit spending is going to foreign aid. Sure, compared to the multi-trillion dollar national debt, a billion or ten here and there may not seem like much, but it adds up quickly.

    Every bit of wasteful spending adds to the deficit. It surely isn't just foreign aid that needs to cease, it is all wasteful spending including that giving unearned benefits to the undeserving.

    I'm not so big on anti-illegal immigration. A lot of my friends and coworkers have been or still are illegals. They're not what's causing the economic problems that America has now.
    Many illegals are contributing to economic issues here in America. Even if they weren't, it is still not fair to everyone trying to come here lawfully who is denied or held up for long periods of time. Getting here the lawful way shows a strong commitment to this country. Getting here illegally shows a lack of respect for those of us who are citizens either by birth or by naturalization.

    I have a few ideas about human migration in general. I think it should happen naturally to a certain extent, irrespective of the wishes of the current governments. A lot of migrant workers don't set up permanent residence in the country they work in. There's a difference to illegals who intend to stay permanently and those who are just here for work. I'm not supportive of cracking down on either.
    Illegals are illegals, and need to be deported ASAP. If they wish to come here, they can follow the rules to do so. I am sorry to break it to you, but the entire world cannot be allowed to come here at the same time. We have limits to how many people at a given time can come from various regions of the world for a reason. It isn't fair to those who are trying to follow the rules that we allow illegals to enter or remain here for any length of time nor to allow them to benefit from their crime by allowing them to stay.

    Even with more drilling off shore in USA it wouldn't substitute for the volume that is imported from other countries.
    I agree with that. I am of the opinion that we should let the other nations run out of oil first, and save ours for a strategic reserve. Once the price of oil hits a certain mark, alternatives will be viable to stand on their own without subisidies. This is the only reasonable way to go about replacing oil: allowing the market to decide when and how to do it.

    I think the federal reserve bank needs to be modified.
    Me too. Return to a gold standard. Force the politicians to cut out deficit spending. Take away the politicians' ability to print more money at will and further devalue our currency versus everybody elses'. Anything else is simply going to help speed up the collapse of this nation.
    Last edited by the_sandman_454; 06-22-11 at 04:36 AM.
    06-22-11 04:22 AM
  16. kbz1960's Avatar
    Two words, you can look it up. Fair Tax.
    06-22-11 05:26 AM
  17. trucky's Avatar
    Two words, you can look it up. Fair Tax.

    A big step in the right direction... if done right.
    06-22-11 06:27 AM
  18. blue81to's Avatar
    My problem with a Fair Tax or a flat tax type of system is where will the money come from if it's implemented. Most wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the population. Tax rates have a more drastic affect on basic living expenses for people in lower income brackets. With a flat tax where everyone pay the same rate. How could you find a rate that collects enough taxes but is practical for all income brackets?

    I'm supportive of trying to shift currency away from government and towards the private sector. I don't think a flat tax is the best way to do it.

    The Department of Defence and Federal Reserve Bank spends trillions of dollars that is never accounted for.






    Me too. Return to a gold standard. Force the politicians to cut out deficit spending. Take away the politicians' ability to print more money at will and further devalue our currency versus everybody elses'. Anything else is simply going to help speed up the collapse of this nation.
    I don't think a gold standard would work for a modern economy. There's not enough gold to back most currencies.
    06-22-11 01:13 PM
  19. trucky's Avatar
    I'm ready for the fair tax (consumption based).

    Then you read something like this just now in the news and just wonder "What are they thinking?"

    Democrats in the Senate on Wednesday called on Vice President Joe Biden to include new economic stimulus spending in deficit-reduction talks as a way of lowering the 9.1 percent jobless rate that is hobbling the economic recovery.
    06-22-11 02:36 PM
  20. kbz1960's Avatar
    My problem with a Fair Tax or a flat tax type of system is where will the money come from if it's implemented. Most wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the population. Tax rates have a more drastic affect on basic living expenses for people in lower income brackets. With a flat tax where everyone pay the same rate. How could you find a rate that collects enough taxes but is practical for all income brackets?

    I'm supportive of trying to shift currency away from government and towards the private sector. I don't think a flat tax is the best way to do it.

    The Department of Defence and Federal Reserve Bank spends trillions of dollars that is never accounted for.








    I don't think a gold standard would work for a modern economy. There's not enough gold to back most currencies.
    Did you read anything on the link? It explains it all.
    06-22-11 02:46 PM
  21. qbnkelt's Avatar

    Those government employees with any ability or ambition would easily find a place in the instantly growing private sector. Those without motivation or ability are in for a rude awakening, but they need it. I'm sure sick of paying good money for a bunch of folks who are in it just to get a paycheck and a good retirement without giving us the work we're paying them for.

    .
    OUCH!!!!

    I don't want a job in the private sector. I've worked for the feds since getting my MBAs (yes, two) because I needed a job right away. So I got into the Feds.

    Since then I've come to love serving. It's not about retirement or a health plan, it's about protecting the agency so called "assets" we put in harms' way. To that end, I do all I can.

    I don't want to work in a corporation making more money that I am today. It's about going home thinking that I've done something that protects someone else.
    06-22-11 04:16 PM
  22. amanda.m.tietsort's Avatar
    ok, i may not have read all of the first post but i def. agree. the govt needs to pull their heads outta there @$$3$ and do their job
    06-22-11 05:01 PM
  23. amanda.m.tietsort's Avatar
    do 2 things, just two and it would greatly impact our society...bring back the chain-gang and install mandatory monthly drug testing for all welfare recipients.

    with the chain gang you would make criminals or those who have no fear of the law think twice before committing crimes such as drug dealing, shoplifting, credit fraud or whatever else.
    if those of us supporting people on welfare have to do drug tests, then those receiving it should have to do the same
    06-22-11 05:08 PM
  24. the_sandman_454's Avatar
    OUCH!!!!

    I don't want a job in the private sector. I've worked for the feds since getting my MBAs (yes, two) because I needed a job right away. So I got into the Feds.

    Since then I've come to love serving. It's not about retirement or a health plan, it's about protecting the agency so called "assets" we put in harms' way. To that end, I do all I can.

    I don't want to work in a corporation making more money that I am today. It's about going home thinking that I've done something that protects someone else.
    I think I may have failed to express myself properly, or may have been misunderstood. I realize we need some government agencies. It sounds like you work in one of the useful agencies dealing with national defense, a concept which I strongly recognize the need for.

    The truth is, however, there are far too many government agencies which do essentially nothing useful (and with no Constitutional mandate) and simply add needless buearocracy for citizens and businesses alike to have to deal with. These are the agencies which need to be slashed immediately.

    My comment was simply that if the unnecessary agencies were slashed, the good, ambitious former government employees would not struggle at all finding good jobs in the private sector. Those who just show up and do the minimum work possible, however, might be in for a shock.
    kbz1960 likes this.
    06-22-11 07:19 PM
  25. qbnkelt's Avatar
    I hear you, sandman, and I get your meaning.
    I was simply trying to dispel the notion that all federal employees are retired in place from the moment they're hired. I landed my first job at an Air Force Base straight out of UCLA for what I thought was an interim to pay off debts accumulated while in school and found myself falling in love with the idea of serving the country. In what way I could.
    I've since moved to DC and I work in an agency whose mission is security and defence of the American people. And I can tell you my staff and everyone around me is keenly aware of the importance of achieving our mission. Our tasks and concerns are deeply engaged in protecting our people who are in the field. In whatever the task may be.
    Which, I suppose, would explain my obsession with security.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-23-11 06:01 AM
64 123
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD