IRS Buttwipes Tackle the Poor

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by MagiK: Well TL, you already know how I feel about the IRS [img]smile.gif[/img] I think they should be disbanded and a national flat tax rate established with no loopholes [img]smile.gif[/img] As for the EITC...I think it is an abomination and has no business being in the tax code. If you want to give other peoples money away, just hire a mugger to take it and not use the tax code Harrrrumph!

EIC is another form of welfare. It has its place. At least it only pays those who work. Here's something amusing that happened to me. This year I found, to my dismay, that I once again qualify for EIC as a single parent! Not a lot of it, but still some. I guess inflation and the economic slump have hit my pay harder than I thought!

[ 04-28-2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 1992 Survey of COnsumer Finances: Bottom 40% income = 1% of the wealth (doing our math, Top 60% = 99% wealth) Top 1% income = 30% of wealth Top 5% income = 55% of wealth Top 20% income = 80% of wealth My numbers weren't that far off for out-of-memory off-the-cuff use. Plus, since 1992, if trend of the last 100 years was followed (which it was), the gap between the richest and poorest has grown, skewing these numbers even more.

gap? what gap? (in honor of Marty Feldman and Gene Wilder)

Err no seriously what is this gap we are saying is getting bigger? you start off and say the poorest people have 0 so then what you are saying that the richest people are getting more above 0 (zero) than they were? Heck that will happen with a simple savings account.

[Timber Loftis]

What I am saying MagiK is that the trend is: the highest income percentages have owned increasingly more of the wealth. That is to say that if 20% of the people owned 80% of the wealth in 1992, then that same 20% now owns MORE THAN 80% of the wealth. And, if the poorest 40% owned 1% of the wealth in 1992, that group now owns LESS THAN 1% of the wealth.

I have not the time right now to go get more current figures to prove this true, but I think it's an obvious enough trend for me to put it forth here amongst our intelligent little conclave of policy makers. It's not like I'm proposing the Earth is the center of the universe or anything.

[Timber Loftis]

And, I agree with Sir Kenyth. If we are going to give welfare to anyone, I'd rather give it to the guy working everyday for $30K a year than to the guy who sits on his mommas porch sippin his 40 rather than get a job at what he considers to be insulting wages.

Plus, dude, the max is $2K for this "welfare," so lets not act like our world is ending.

Well then I guess I have to just say my prayers every evening and thank god Im not one of the lower 40%.....Of course, when the nation has 60% (this might be propaganda by the housing industry) of the people owning their own homes ...it seems that some measurements are showing an increasing prosperity for all even the lower 40%...perhaps the lower 40% aren't gaining ground as fast as the upper 60?

I don't have any answers but if it is that bad, then something will break. It always does....and revolution will roll around...one way or t'other

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: And, I agree with Sir Kenyth. If we are going to give welfare to anyone, I'd rather give it to the guy working everyday for $30K a year than to the guy who sits on his mommas porch sippin his 40 rather than get a job at what he considers to be insulting wages. Plus, dude, the max is $2K for this "welfare," so lets not act like our world is ending.

I will agree in principle with this idea, however, if this guy is living off mom and pop, thats THEIR right to do with their wealth as they please. They earned it (or someone did at some point in history)

But as has been proven time and time again the surest way to waste money is to give it to the government to "resditribute" and 2 grand multiplied by tens of millions can add up dude.

I agree help those who are working, and cut those who are not off at the knees...everyone can do some kind of work.....except for that 2 percent of humanity that statiticians tell us are completely unemployable due to mental defect or illness...do I sound like scrooge yet?

Edit: food, Shelter and Clothing = Necessities
and perhaps transportation.

TV's, VCR's, boomboxes, cell phones, mp3 players= not necessary.

[ 04-28-2003, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Thorfinn]

That was kind of why I posted, Kenyth. I thought it was interesting that you lived so close.

Timber, I checked into your source, and I don't think it is nearly that disparate. According to http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/o...1/bull0103.pdf , page 7, the upper 10% is skewed pretty heavily towards wealth, but wealth with respect to income of the 50-89% group is actually lower than the <50%. The gap spread marginally between 1992 and 1998, the top brackets lost far more than the middle and lower brackets from '98-'01.

But, of course, all that is meaningless, and has less to do with equity than with envy. The question is really whether people get an income commensurate with what his fellow man feels he should as determined by the products the people freely choose to buy. A very good case can be made that CEOs and major sports figures, for instance, are vastly underpaid, based on consumer spending...

[EDIT]Timber, if you want to pay welfare to anyone, feel free to do so. Give to the charity of your choice. But I fail to see where anyone has the right to force me to agree with you, and to lend financial support to that charity.
[/EDIT]

[ 04-28-2003, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: That was kind of why I posted, Kenyth. I thought it was interesting that you lived so close. Timber, I checked into your source, and I don't think it is nearly that disparate. According to http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/o...1/bull0103.pdf , page 7, the upper 10% is skewed pretty heavily towards wealth, but wealth with respect to income of the 50-89% group is actually lower than the <50%. The gap spread marginally between 1992 and 1998, the top brackets lost far more than the middle and lower brackets from '98-'01. But, of course, all that is meaningless, and has less to do with equity than with envy. The question is really whether people get an income commensurate with what his fellow man feels he should as determined by the products the people freely choose to buy. A very good case can be made that CEOs and major sports figures, for instance, are vastly underpaid, based on consumer spending...

On the other Hand I think in the last 2 years we have seen CEO's being paid WAAAAAAAAAY more than they were worth, getting multi-million dollar severances after tanking the company....good lord that is one thing I find completely unacceptable.

[Thorfinn]

The severances are an oddity, IMO. Most CEOs could probably get far more in court. During the, um, New Economy, they were able to negotiate some fantastic deals, and anytime there is that much money involved, you will draw some phenomenal attorneys, who can find a precedent to justify anything.

Had we not had the extenuating circumstances of manipulation of the credit market via means like the Fed, it would have been literally impossible to have that kind of golden parachute, since the money simply did not exist. But anytime you have Fed created inflation, just as with counterfeiting, you greatly benefit those at the beginning of the money introduction cycle, to the detriment of those below, i.e., Fed induced inflation necessarily benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: [EDIT]Timber, if you want to pay welfare to anyone, feel free to do so. Give to the charity of your choice. But I fail to see where anyone has the right to force me to agree with you, and to lend financial support to that charity. [/EDIT]

I said *IF* we are going to pay to anyone, not *we should or will.*

No one deserves CEO salary. Really, can one man ever claim the decisions he made are the sole reason the company made $40 million more last year? Even if he can, does he deserve $10 million for doing anything - ever? In a time when Congress is currently voting to limit absolute recovery for LOSS OF A HUMAN LIFE to somewhere around $1mil. in medical malpractice cases, yet one Patriot missile costs more than that, and yet a single-family (but very large) home on Star Island, Miami, costs at least $8 million, and a 1962 Ferrari goes for $2 million, WHAT THE F*&K ARE WE SAYING ABOUT THE VALUE OF LIFE???? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img]

Sorry, but shouldn't we be able to say, theoretically, that you can pick the most frikkin' expensive piece of CHATTEL PROPERTY on the planet and a single human life is worth more???? Am I being silly here?