S
SamH
Guest
Read the quoted section.
US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Wow! Has this thread grown!
I have said this before, but I’ll repeat it. It is unlikely that any tax increases will significantly affect the truly rich. The burden of increased tax RATES will fall on the middle class, and we ought to think about that.
Warren Buffett has said that his RATE is lower than his secretary’s. No reason to doubt him. But why? Well, I don’t know for sure, but it’s easy to think of ways he could do that.
First of all, people with a lot of asset wealth (particularly that was bought cheap and is now much more valuable…as with Buffett…can control their income. For one thing, their “consumer assets”…home, etc, are already paid for. So they don’t need cash flow to buy those things in installments the way the rest of us do. They only draw out of their asset wealth what they need at any point in time. A high-earning plant manager somewhere can’t do that. His salary is fixed, and he can’t control its inflow the way Buffett can.
Second, the truly rich can, and do, give quite a bit of it away. Take Buffett for example, or Gates. They have donated billions to a private foundation they control. That means they have enormous offsets to income. It’s a wonder Buffett pays income taxes at all.
Unless that whole thing gets changed somehow, raising tax rates won’t affect what some feel is an inequity in the tax burden.
It’s true that lower income people can end up paying more in taxes as a percentage of income than people who make much more. That’s because of Social Security and medicare taxes. It amazes me when people who say that’s a “tax”, then turn around and say SS benefits are somehow “earned”. “I paid that in, and I’m entitled to it.” It’s either a tax or a retirement trust fund, but it isn’t both. One could just as well say low income workers are bigger savers.
But it is a tax. There’s no trust fund. It’s really “pay as you go”. So, should SS taxes be made more progressive? And if so, is there really any good reason to pretend any longer that it’s some sort of “savings account”?
Aside from the fact that wages from work go down as entitlement spending goes up (a problem all its own) the system would have to be changed significantly to adapt to the notion that SS taxes are really just a “tax” and not a 'retirement contribution". For one thing, SS benefits are based on what a person pays in over a lifetime of work, relative the maximum benefit payable at the time. So, when we increase the income on which SS tax is collected, we automatically reduce benefits for those who earn less than the maximum upon which tax is paid.
Obama’s “tax the rich” proposal is just one more piece of scotch tape on a machine that is, by now, largely composed of bits of scotch tape, and nobody seems to notice that the underlying machine fell into a heap long ago, leaving only the scotch tape.
What a truly, genuinely “Catholic approach” to all of this is another story, far too long to expound further here. I’ll be lucky if this post isn’t too long already.
I have said this before, but I’ll repeat it. It is unlikely that any tax increases will significantly affect the truly rich. The burden of increased tax RATES will fall on the middle class, and we ought to think about that.
Warren Buffett has said that his RATE is lower than his secretary’s. No reason to doubt him. But why? Well, I don’t know for sure, but it’s easy to think of ways he could do that.
First of all, people with a lot of asset wealth (particularly that was bought cheap and is now much more valuable…as with Buffett…can control their income. For one thing, their “consumer assets”…home, etc, are already paid for. So they don’t need cash flow to buy those things in installments the way the rest of us do. They only draw out of their asset wealth what they need at any point in time. A high-earning plant manager somewhere can’t do that. His salary is fixed, and he can’t control its inflow the way Buffett can.
Second, the truly rich can, and do, give quite a bit of it away. Take Buffett for example, or Gates. They have donated billions to a private foundation they control. That means they have enormous offsets to income. It’s a wonder Buffett pays income taxes at all.
Unless that whole thing gets changed somehow, raising tax rates won’t affect what some feel is an inequity in the tax burden.
It’s true that lower income people can end up paying more in taxes as a percentage of income than people who make much more. That’s because of Social Security and medicare taxes. It amazes me when people who say that’s a “tax”, then turn around and say SS benefits are somehow “earned”. “I paid that in, and I’m entitled to it.” It’s either a tax or a retirement trust fund, but it isn’t both. One could just as well say low income workers are bigger savers.
But it is a tax. There’s no trust fund. It’s really “pay as you go”. So, should SS taxes be made more progressive? And if so, is there really any good reason to pretend any longer that it’s some sort of “savings account”?
Aside from the fact that wages from work go down as entitlement spending goes up (a problem all its own) the system would have to be changed significantly to adapt to the notion that SS taxes are really just a “tax” and not a 'retirement contribution". For one thing, SS benefits are based on what a person pays in over a lifetime of work, relative the maximum benefit payable at the time. So, when we increase the income on which SS tax is collected, we automatically reduce benefits for those who earn less than the maximum upon which tax is paid.
Obama’s “tax the rich” proposal is just one more piece of scotch tape on a machine that is, by now, largely composed of bits of scotch tape, and nobody seems to notice that the underlying machine fell into a heap long ago, leaving only the scotch tape.
What a truly, genuinely “Catholic approach” to all of this is another story, far too long to expound further here. I’ll be lucky if this post isn’t too long already.
4
4elise
Guest
I’m sorry - I was responding to your comment that if you father didn’t feed you then someone would take you out of your home. Following that thought what that would require (as it does sadly for many children even with free lunches)
Do you think it is possibly that you have made an error in judgment to believe your experience is universally applicable?
Do you think it is possible that some like myself who advocate for things like free lunches do so not to ‘feel good’ but because we believe it is the right thing to do?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Such generalizations, with a judgment of those scratching off tickets. Show us the number that actually need it, and how you can tell simply by looking at them. Also explain how you know the people buying scratch offs are receiving assistance.Thanks but this was nearly 40 years ago.
It sad how many think that those on the dole really need it. Sit for 20 minutes in some bodega and see how many scratch off’s they sell.
S
SamH
Guest
It’s not the suggestion that you should find offensive but the act.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
And some people think the right thing to do is slowly wean people off the government teat.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Hammock…trampoline…same same. Too many people plan their lives around public entitlements. This attitude in effect expects the government to rob other people to support yourself. Its immoral and tantamount to theft by proxy.
4
4elise
Guest
Please clarify.
You believe that as a ‘liberal’ who believes the safety net should be maintained - I am therefore not pro-life? Is that true of the original article as well?
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
The issue he’s pointing out is that generally the people in congress who want the safety net to be maintained also are in favor of abortion-on-demand (or are at least open to abortion).
This is at odds with chuch teaching of proportional reasoning and prudential judgement; no amount of safety net (unless we are clearly letting people die in the streets or are commiting some other form genocide of course) can make up for allowing unbridled abortion rights.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Tell me, how does a pro life liberal promote a liberal agenda and the pro life agenda at the same time? Liberals do not promote a safety net, but a funnel. The only way out is down.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
4
4elise
Guest
The safety net is not just medicare.
It provides grants to Catholic Relief Services - grants that provide foster care, housing assistance, job training, feeding programs, on and on. including aid to help women chose life by helping them have the support they need / Cuts to veteran benefits - are also part of the safety net.
I think the big difference is how those who benefit from the safety net are viewed.
Some here apply either a personal experience or anecdotal evidence to reinforce a belief that the poor have made a choice to be poor. I believe people who meet this view are few, and I would certainly advocate for oversight and work to get people off welfare.
4
4elise
Guest
Simply there are those of us who are pro life and also support the ‘liberal’ values of providing for those in our country who need help. Your view of the safety net is not shared. Perhaps it is again needing definition. The use of government funding, for example by CRS provides job training - housing assistance for women expecting children -
4
4elise
Guest
As I have said before why I do not belong to any party - I don’t think either gets it right 100% of the time. You see, some safety net helps women chose life - a primary reason noted for abortions by women is that they can’t afford a or another child. / Women who have lower education levels are more likely to have abortions. / Women who don’t have access to support to get out of a bad relationship / so the safety net (for example as provided through CRS) HELPS save unborn children too.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
Yeah they do help save children but not in all cases. The biggest way to make a dent in the number of abortions? Make it illegal.
4
4elise
Guest
A big part of the safety net is job training - moving people to self-sufficiency (I believe that fits your very DEROGATORY reference)
4
4elise
Guest
And the republicians are working to do that in your estimation? 8 years of Bush - didn’t see a move in that direction during those 8 years. Obviously more complex isn’t it.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
For some it’s not what the agendas are. Some believe Republicans don’t want, or can’t afford, for abortion to be illegal without risking losing, what appears to be, a pandering point to maintain a bloc of voters. Sadly, one side speaks the truth and the other side seems dishonest in their agenda.
Prior to the last two appointees on the supreme court, Republicans had appointed 7 of the 9 justices on the court. During the last republican administration nothing was done to stop the trade of the abortifacient RU486 with the Chinese, even though problems were identified with the drug. Problems that the FDA preferred to remain silent on because of how vocal pro-lifers were. Admittedly, Bush slowed the importation of the drug from the European market, but like the FDA remained silent on the tainted product from China, during his administration. Seems it might have been politically expedient since China was willing to make loans to the US, who knows the reasoning.
Tainted Drugs Tied to Maker of Abortion Pill
Then the election came down to two. One said he favored abortion, the other seem to say what was politically correct.
John McCain
Now we had to decide which was to be believed, from a man who cheated on his wife and left for his mistress, after his wife had been disfigured in an accident, even though his wife waited for his return from Viet Nam.
This was part of the reasoning some used to make their decision. No one is obligated to vote for someone they believe to be pandering to a bloc of voters.
Proportionate reasons were never specifically defined by the person that wrote:
If those Catholics that voted that way were at risk to be removed from the Church, and endanger their eternal salvation, the one shepherd over our Church, who wrote the above quote, would have surely spoken up so corrections could have been made. While there are many who have judged and condemned others wrong, for the way they voted, the Pope has not, at least he hasn’t spoken publicly on the matter.
S
seekerz
Guest
Wrong - that’s just the biggest carpet to sweep it under. I’m not advocating keeping it legal to prevent medical complications of backstreet abortions (that’s usually the immediate response when I post such views), I’m simply stating a fact. If the root causes of people seeking abortions (social, moral, spiritual) are not effectively addressed, all making abortion illegal is likely to do is close down the clinics - then we will be free to fool ourselves that abortion has been substantially reduced because of course the people having them will NOT be talking.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
And I find it very derogatory that someone is willing to vote for pro-abortion (which amounts to legal genocide) canidates under the guise of “helping the poor.” I find the whole thing a very hypocritical.
- Status