List of Social Injustices that some prefer to ignore

[ManOnFire]

What about the growing percentage of children who are growing up in single parent homes? Isn’t anyone in the media concerned about this growing fact? The number has risen from 10% of the population a few decades ago to nearly half the population today. Where’s the press coverage? Why is it happening? I’m all in favor of helping those who’s spouse died, but why should taxpayers be forced to support those who are having sex for sport where the weak man runs from responsibility? Why should responsible parents pay for 18 years of health, education, and welfare for their own kids plus be forced via taxes to pay for 18 years of health, education, and welfare of the kids whose parent skipped out on responsibility in favor of his/her own self interests, leaving the taxpayer to pay for it? WHy not have a federal wage garnishing program for the absent parent since this problem is growing with no indications of slowing down?

 

[zz912]

Who you choose to vote for is between you and your conscience. There is no necessary injustice involved. The Church does not teach that voting a particular way is a sin.

Should be real careful with this. It is not really the case. You are not allowed to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life candidate available. There are other rules as well that pertain to voting. Voting a certain way can most CERTAINLY be a sin.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… Liberal Politicians get elected by taking the easy way by saying yes to everything. The country is in massive debt. The liberal media is quick to blast conservatives as meanies because they use commone sense, then many people rationalize cheating on taxes to invoke each individual’s own sense of “social justice.” If the average American were educated on basic business economics, there would be more social justice and less misunderstanding. …

Many economists support increasing debt during economic slowdowns to mild the cycle. Many economist point to a theory in which the great depression was extend by the Fed tightening money to chase dropping GDP. Few economists would support extensive tightening in 2008-2010. Economists will split when private sector investment starts to rise. It is hard to seriously argue government borrowing today is choking private sector investing. May be people are not that dumb? May be democrats represent the NEA better than Republicans? Again why do you assume people who owe little in taxes cheat, and thus assume high risk for minimal return?

Btw did you know the top 400 wealthiest American pay below 17% in federal income tax? That is a low rate, personally I pay 22.5%.

 

[ManOnFire]

Many economists support increasing debt during economic slowdowns to mild the cycle. Many economist point to a theory in which the great depression was extend by the Fed tightening money to chase dropping GDP. Few economists would support extensive tightening in 2008-2010. Economists will split when private sector investment starts to rise. It is hard to seriously argue government borrowing today is choking private sector investing. May be people are not that dumb? May be democrats represent the NEA better than Republicans? Again why do you assume people who owe little in taxes cheat, and thus assume high risk for minimal return?

Btw did you know the top 400 wealthiest American pay below 17% in federal income tax? That is a low rate, personally I pay 22.5%.

It’s hard to make the claim that democrats better represent the NEA than republicans. The problem is not the quality of teachers. It is society’s priorities. Good customer service and political correctnesses’ desire to “not offend anyone” translates into peoples’ desire to feel good all the time. If people want to feel good all the time, they can do this most efficiently via entertainment media, not hard work in the classroom. Where’s the desire when there’s an attitude of “It’s all good?” If it’s all good, then why do we have such problems?

Do you have a link for the 400 wealthiest Americans reference? I’m just curious how they do it. I imagine they probably give their money away to charities, but I’d like to know. THe 400 wealthiest Americans are basically untouchable and irrelevant to the discussion of the plight of the average American. You could take every penny from the wealthiest 400 and redistribute it to the masses and it’ wouldn’t make a significant difference in the lives of the masses. That’s where the fantasizers are wrong. It’s the day to day knowledge of how money is earned that would free people from the faulty expectations of delusional fantasies. If you gave $50,000 to the average American as a free gift, what would they do with the money? If they buy entertanment instead of securing their financial future, then you have not helped anyone. You have made the problem worse.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It’s hard to make the claim that democrats better represent the NEA than republicans.

If republican represent teachers equally well roughly 50% of teachers should be voting republican

The problem is not the quality of teachers. It is society’s priorities. Good customer service and political correctnesses’ desire to “not offend anyone” translates into peoples’ desire to feel good all the time. If people want to feel good all the time, they can do this most efficiently via entertainment media, not hard work in the classroom. Where’s the desire when there’s an attitude of “It’s all good?” If it’s all good, then why do we have such problems?

Do you have a link for the 400 wealthiest Americans reference?

forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html
quickanded.com/2010/02/effective-tax-rates-of-the-richest-400-americans.html
thinkprogress.org/2009/01/30/americans-income-doubled-bush/
bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5DFqImg0c7M

I’m just curious how they do it. I imagine they probably give their money away to charities, but I’d like to know.

They do not work so no earned income, their tax is based on converting capital gains to cash

THe 400 wealthiest Americans are basically untouchable and irrelevant to the discussion of the plight of the average American. You could take every penny from the wealthiest 400 and redistribute it to the masses and it’ wouldn’t make a significant difference in the lives of the masses. That’s where the fantasizers are wrong. It’s the day to day knowledge of how money is earned that would free people from the faulty expectations of delusional fantasies. If you gave $50,000 to the average American as a free gift, what would they do with the money? If they buy entertanment instead of securing their financial future, then you have not helped anyone. You have made the problem worse.

i have never heard a call to take their money away, i have heard they should pay equal tax rates as workers. But they don’t, neither do companies. Once you could file an income tax just like a company but that is illegal now. See business pay on profit, but citizens pay on income.

 

[ManOnFire]

If republican represent teachers equally well roughly 50% of teachers should be voting republican
forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html
quickanded.com/2010/02/effective-tax-rates-of-the-richest-400-americans.html
thinkprogress.org/2009/01/30/americans-income-doubled-bush/
bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5DFqImg0c7M
They do not work so no earned income, their tax is based on converting capital gains to cash i have never heard a call to take their money away, i have heard they should pay equal tax rates as workers. But they don’t, neither do companies. Once you could file an income tax just like a company but that is illegal now. See business pay on profit, but citizens pay on income.

Maybe you misunderstood me about the teachers. The 1.7 million member NEA is mostly democrats. The problem is not so much the teachers as it is the liberal society. Teachers cannot be both soft and hard at the same time, but they fail to see this. If they were tough and old school, they’d get blamed for being, well, republican. The point is: where’s the justice when taxpayers who pay for our school system are split down the middle but the teachers aren’t?

I’m not mega wealthy, but I was curious for how this could be and here’s one explanation regarding the mega-wealthy and low taxes: "The trick here is this: there is INCOME tax and there is Capital Gains tax. They’re different. Imagine a scenario where you hit the lottery. You win 200 million dollars. (You immediately owe about 100million in taxes.)

Ok, you take your 100 million you have left and throw it in the bank and never work again.

What do you pay in taxes next year? Nothing. And why should you? You’ve already paid tax on the money you earned (ok, won) but you paid your tax on it, and now you’re living off it. So next year, you have no “income” So, you’ve paid your tax responsibilty."
rate.forbes.com/comments/CommentServlet?op=cpage&sourcename=story&StoryURI=2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html&com=57003

“The President continues to push for stimulus even though hundreds of billions of dollars in such funds seem to have done little. The unemployment rate when Obama took office in January 2009 was 7.7%; now it is 9.5%. Yet he wants to spend even more and is determined to foist the entire bill on Americans making $250,000 a year or more. The rich, Obama insists, aren’t paying their “fair share.” This by itself seems odd given that the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes; the next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing.” Forbes Magazine: forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html

Sadly, there will be people who will still try to claim that the facts aren’t facts due to their own ignorance, passion and feelings. If kids were being taught by our educational system how business works, then they could be free from faulty expectations that are based on feelings, not facts.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Maybe you misunderstood me about the teachers. The 1.7 million member NEA is mostly democrats. The problem is not so much the teachers as it is the liberal society. Teachers cannot be both soft and hard at the same time, but they fail to see this. If they were tough and old school, they’d get blamed for being, well, republican. The point is: where’s the justice when taxpayers who pay for our school system are split down the middle but the teachers aren’t?

society is split in many groups, do you really want teachers to represent all of those groups, some groups have extreme agenda? Or are you thinking teachers must not be from a free society, where they chose their agenda?

I’m not mega wealthy, but I was curious for how this could be and here’s one explanation regarding the mega-wealthy and low taxes: "The trick here is this: there is INCOME tax and there is Capital Gains tax. They’re different. Imagine a scenario where you hit the lottery. You win 200 million dollars. (You immediately owe about 100million in taxes.)

Ok, you take your 100 million you have left and throw it in the bank and never work again.

What do you pay in taxes next year? Nothing. And why should you? You’ve already paid tax on the money you earned (ok, won) but you paid your tax on it, and now you’re living off it. So next year, you have no “income” So, you’ve paid your tax responsibilty."

Well there might be more, the IRS says capital gains are income and are subject to income taxes. The example you cite does not show a true capital gain nor a regular earned income. A regular earned income is fairly simple as a teacher working as a teacher. A capital gain would be like your lottery winner buying $60 million in stocks, and later say 5 years later selling that stock for $82 million, so the 82-60 = a 22 million dollar capital gain. So that is 3.3 million in taxes, however if that person earned 22 million working they would lose 8.8 million to taxes!. So why is the same income taxed at 8.8 million if earned but only 3.3 million if not earned? The answer is mostly due to wealthy people funding politicians. These politicians then over exaggerate the effect of things like inflation to unjustly under tax this group. For example the 22 million dollar capital gain here could contain about 6 million in inflation so to adjust for inflation 22-6=16 which created a 3.3 million tax so 3.3/16 = 20.6% real tax rate. Yet again why should one group pay a 20.6% rate for the same amount the other group pays 40% for?

rate.forbes.com/comments/Comm…html&com=57003

When I open this it went to a comment which is factual incorrect

“The President continues to push for stimulus even though hundreds of billions of dollars in such funds seem to have done little. The unemployment rate when Obama took office in January 2009 was 7.7%; now it is 9.5%. Yet he wants to spend even more and is determined to foist the entire bill on Americans making $250,000 a year or more. The rich, Obama insists, aren’t paying their “fair share.” This by itself seems odd given that the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes; the next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing.” Forbes Magazine: forbes.com/forbes/2010/09…s-problem.html

The president is correct a tremendous part of the tax code is ways to reduce taxes on the top 10 percent of incomes. Had he not attempted to stimulate the economy unemployment would have been both larger and longer. And last top earners certainly pay the most federal income taxes however federal income taxes are the smaller part of taxes! Social Security/Medicaid taxes alone exceed the tax rate paid in to federal income tax by the top 400 incomes.

Sadly, there will be people who will still try to claim that the facts aren’t facts due to their own ignorance, passion and feelings. If kids were being taught by our educational system how business works, then they could be free from faulty expectations that are based on feelings, not facts.

Maybe educated people often see through the false facade? If you pay 17% federal income tax and zero Social Security/Medicaid taxes are you really being cheated, given a common laborer is paying ~16% Social Security/Medicaid taxes and another 3% in federal income tax?

hope that helps

 

[MaxTH]

Cheating on taxes is a sin, pure plain and simple.

Maybe, maybe not. It’s open to debate.

Jesus himself stated that you are required to “Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesars”. That means you are OBLIGATED to pay your just taxes.

Exactly, “just” taxes. The Church has said that confiscatory taxation is immoral and one is not obligated to do what is immoral.

Who you choose to vote for is between you and your conscience. There is no necessary injustice involved. The Church does not teach that voting a particular way is a sin.

Actually voting for abortion is a sin. Voting for the immoral vulgarity of “homosexual marriage” is a sin.

Remember, in the tradition of the Church there are 4 truly great sins that “cry out to Heaven for vengeance.”

1. homosexuality, the sin of sodom
2. abortion, willful killing of the innocent
3. oppression of the poor.
4. Defrauding laborers of their just wages.

While business can defraud laborers of their just wages, so can government, which is why confiscatory taxation is also a great evil.

 

[ManOnFire]

Maybe educated people often see through the false facade? If you pay 17% federal income tax and zero Social Security/Medicaid taxes are you really being cheated, given a common laborer is paying ~16% Social Security/Medicaid taxes and another 3% in federal income tax?

hope that helps

Notice I didn’t say educated person. If you put up a billboard that announced that the top 10% of income earners are paying 70% of the federal income taxes, uneducated people would believe it was false and politically motivated, plain and simple. I have no problem with the top 10K wealthiest individuals paying more in taxes. I think you’re right in complaining about how people who make over 150K are paying a higher percent (40% taxes) than the mega wealthy, but it’s like you said: the megawealthy influence the laws. The misunderstanding comes when average folks falsely assume that their local successful business people are the mega weathly who pay less taxes. This is simply false, so this is where tempers flare. Successful business people are already in the 40% tax bracket and the public wants them to pay more.

 

[ManOnFire]

What about the growing percentage of children who are growing up in single parent homes? Isn’t anyone in the media concerned about this growing fact? The number has risen from 10% of the population a few decades ago to nearly half the population today. Where’s the press coverage? Why is it happening? I’m all in favor of helping those who’s spouse died, but why should taxpayers be forced to support those who are having sex for sport where the weak man runs from responsibility? Why should responsible parents pay for 18 years of health, education, and welfare for their own kids plus be forced via taxes to pay for 18 years of health, education, and welfare of the kids whose parent skipped out on responsibility in favor of his/her own self interests, leaving the taxpayer to pay for it? WHy not have a federal wage garnishing program for the absent parent since this problem is growing with no indications of slowing down?

Let’s not bury our heads in the sand and fool ourselves into believing this is not a growing moral and financial issue. Doesn’t anyone want to discuss how we taxpayers must fund one of the 2 following growing scenarios?:

1. Parents, who were/are financially responsible for 18 years of health, education, and welfare for their own kids, are forced to pay taxes for 18 years of health, education, and welfare for kids where (usually) dad chose to skip out on his responsibility, OR
2. Taxpayer funded abortion.

Many women will choose to have the kids because the govt. will pay them monthly to have kids and they don’t have the money for an abortion. Having the kids is morally right, financially unjust and more expensive than an abortion, but abortion is morally wrong as a Catholic, but financially less expensive than 18 years of child care. If this problem were not growing, this issue be financially manageable as-is. Either way, there’s no justice for taxpayers as the lesser of 2 evils must be chosen by the govt.

 

[zz912]

Many economists support increasing debt during economic slowdowns to mild the cycle. Many economist point to a theory in which the great depression was extend by the Fed tightening money to chase dropping GDP. Few economists would support extensive tightening in 2008-2010. Economists will split when private sector investment starts to rise. It is hard to seriously argue government borrowing today is choking private sector investing. May be people are not that dumb? May be democrats represent the NEA better than Republicans? Again why do you assume people who owe little in taxes cheat, and thus assume high risk for minimal return?

Btw did you know the top 400 wealthiest American pay below 17% in federal income tax? That is a low rate, personally I pay 22.5%.

Only Keynesian economists. And there are a LOT of economists who disagree with voodoo-Keynesianism. Have you ever heard of the Great Depression of 1920? They did exactly what should have been done in 1929, and in 2008, which is cut back govt and govt spending drastically. The depression in 1920 was WORSE than 1929, and yet, America bounced back in under 18 months. They tried Keynesianism in 1929-45, and extended the depression for almost 2 decades.

I’d stick with the one that worked, wouldn’t you?

And statistics can be made to say anything you want, and of the top 1% of income earners, they pay 40-45% of all income taxes, but only bring in about 28% of all income.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Only Keynesian economists. And there are a LOT of economists who disagree with voodoo-Keynesianism. Have you ever heard of the Great Depression of 1920? They did exactly what should have been done in 1929, and in 2008, which is cut back govt and govt spending drastically. The depression in 1920 was WORSE than 1929, and yet, America bounced back in under 18 months. They tried Keynesianism in 1929-45, and extended the depression for almost 2 decades.

The guy in charge died between 1920 and 1929, did you know that? Some writers believe had he not died the great deprssion would not have existed.

I’d stick with the one that worked, wouldn’t you?

? I did

And statistics can be made to say anything you want, and of the top 1% of income earners, they pay 40-45% of all income taxes, but only bring in about 28% of all income.

That is not correct, you wrote “income taxes” that is not correct about “income taxes” you have to learn to parse your words to make these claims, that is part of why educated people see through the fascia at a greater rate.

Hope that helps

btw- his name was Benjamin Strong, Jr. if you wish to read on the subject

 

[MaxTH]

If the Federal government did only those things the Constitution granted it the authority to do, it could probably get by with an under 10% income tax on all Americans.

As it is, one of the greater evils of the USCCB and individual Bishops was and is their constant advocation for increased spending on absolutely everything (except defense).
They are promoting fiscal insanity and economic suicide. If I were president I would sign an executive order mandating that the USCCB pay for every program or service it has advocated or helped push on the American taxpayer.

If they said: We don’t have the authority, I would reply, I just gave it to you.
If they said: We don’t have the money, I would reply, nor do we.
If they said, We don’t have the responsibility, I would reply, that’s your view and even some of your own theologians say the matter is open to debate.

Many of the US Bishops are complicit, by their lobbying, in the Federal governments consolidating of power, and growth of ever increasing unconstitutional activity, authority, and responsibility.

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4313/usnationaldebtchart2010.gif
At this point however I think it does not matter in the least because of what this chart shows.

 

[zz912]

The guy in charge died between 1920 and 1929, did you know that? Some writers believe had he not died the great deprssion would not have existed. ? I did That is not correct, you wrote “income taxes” that is not correct about “income taxes” you have to learn to parse your words to make these claims, that is part of why educated people see through the fascia at a greater rate.

Hope that helps

btw- his name was Benjamin Strong, Jr. if you wish to read on the subject

Considering Strong was in charge before the depression of 1920, why exactly would you believe that he would have been able to keep the depression of 1929 from happening? That doesn’t make sense. Did he drastically change his policies between 1920 and 1928?

And my facts on income taxes is absolutely accurate, even if you choose not to believe it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Considering Strong was in charge before the depression of 1920, why exactly would you believe that he would have been able to keep the depression of 1929 from happening? That doesn’t make sense. Did he drastically change his policies between 1920 and 1928?

yes in June 1920 it was done to end a sharp ression in 1920

And my facts on income taxes is absolutely accurate, even if you choose not to believe it.

maybe you could show your facts?

 

[zz912]

yes in June 1920 it was done to end a sharp ression in 1920 maybe you could show your facts?

That doesn’t really address my question. How did Strong’s policies change between 1920 and 1928? And how would those changes have averted the Great Depression? His policies prior to the 1920 depression didn’t avert that depression.

You also haven’t shown how Coolidge slashing federal spending and cutting taxes had little effect on ending the Depression of 1920.

I am on my phone, but I will get you the facts as soon as I can. A simple search should bring them up.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That doesn’t really address my question. How did Strong’s policies change between 1920 and 1928? And how would those changes have averted the Great Depression? His policies prior to the 1920 depression didn’t avert that depression.

You also haven’t shown how Coolidge slashing federal spending and cutting taxes had little effect on ending the Depression of 1920.

I am on my phone, but I will get you the facts as soon as I can. A simple search should bring them up.

I do not know where you are getting this from. In 1918 the US budget was swollen triple (~ 5.5 billion to ~17 billion) from World War I which ended late that year. In 1919 the budget was even higher over 23 billion from the affects of the war. To start 1920 the budget was slashed to about 11 billion. Budgets are fiscal policy. The Fed also moved to tight monetary policy by raising rates from about 4.5% to 7.0%. So the slashing of federal spending (fiscal) combined with tightening (monetary) contributed greatly to the 1920 recession. In the summer of 1920 the fed reversed course and loosened monetary policy backward to 4.5%.

Will you show us your income data now?

 

[gnjsdad]

Many economists support increasing debt during economic slowdowns to mild the cycle.

I believe that is called “reflation”, and it’s a good start. Yet many economists also ignore the importance of higher wages to combat the effects of recession. Why? Because most economists are in thrall to the system of state sponsored usury we have now, the system which caused the collapse we’re experiencing now.

So, I would add to the list of social injustices…

The lack of a just wage

The lack of just prices

The contractual expropriation of surplus value through usurious lending in banking

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I believe that is called “reflation”, and it’s a good start. Yet many economists also ignore the importance of higher wages to combat the effects of recession. Why? Because most economists are in thrall to the system of state sponsored usury we have now, the system which caused the collapse we’re experiencing now.

So, I would add to the list of social injustices…

The lack of a just wage

The lack of just prices…

Rarely would an Economist have any control over wage or pricing, these by fundamentals, are the points were supplies met demands. High wage in the market is an interesting subject by itself. One theatrical aspect of wage is all labor is equal, free flowing, and fully knowledgeable. Now of course that is only partial true in the real world. In the real world an auto mechanic of 20 years is unequal to a new high school graduate about car repair. So this violation of equal knowledge creates a price premium for his experience. The problem you hint at is the issue of employers activities used to bias a wage like attaching it to job security, retirement, health care, etc. These conditions often create underpaid employees.

 

[ManOnFire]

I believe that is called “reflation”, and it’s a good start. Yet many economists also ignore the importance of higher wages to combat the effects of recession. Why? Because most economists are in thrall to the system of state sponsored usury we have now, the system which caused the collapse we’re experiencing now.

So, I would add to the list of social injustices…

The lack of a just wage

The lack of just prices

The contractual expropriation of surplus value through usurious lending in banking

Are you saying that wages should be higher or lower? Everyone ones high wages on the eranings side and cheap prices on the consumerist side, so how will we ever rectify this without protectionism unless we all free wilingly agree to buy American and accept that we will only be able to afford less “stuff” without low cost imports? Personally, I’m fine with it. Please explain.