A Nation of Entitlements

College Life
1

<p>There has been some major debates on this board regarding tax policy, specifically who pays, who doesn’t, and who should pay more.</p>

<p>One recurring theme form the left is that the “rich” need to pay more, or “pay their share”, implying the middle/bottom are paying to much, and the taxes on the upper echelon need increased.</p>

<p>Here is an excerpts from todays WSJ article:</p>

<p>“At the same time, the fraction of American households not paying federal income taxes has also grown—to an estimated 45% in 2010”</p>

<p>45% OF AMERICANS DO NOT PAY INCOME TAX! </p>

<p>Now, the real meat and potatoes is entitlements. We as a country are very rapidly becoming an entitlement driven economy, with nearly 50% (expected to grow) of US citizens receiving government aid - which is a severe problem.</p>

<p>This number will dramatically increase once Obama-Care is enacted…</p>

<p>It was a good run America, last one out - turn off the lights.</p>

<p><a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439732358241708.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5[/url]”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439732358241708.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2

<p>I don’t see how anything is going to change unless a significant proportion of the top 50% ups and leaves a la Atlas Shrugged, which is extremely unlikely. Shame.</p>

<p>“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”</p>

3

<p>^ I agree.</p>

<p>However, the same article says that a WSJ poll revealed that 61% of people said they were either “enthusiastic” or “comfortable” with cutting entitlements, which is an encouraging statistic.</p>

<p>This “enthusiasm” could very well grow - rapidly. As our generation financially matures, they will begin to realize that they are paying into entitlement programs that they will never see a return. It’s easy to pay heavy taxes when you will get reimbursement, as previous generations have, but paying heavy taxes into entitlement programs in which you will never get a dime from - that’s a tougher pill to swallow, and will most likely become a heated debate within future election cycles.</p>

<p>Currently, I’m paying into SSI, a system I will never get a dime from. I would be much better off, taking that same percentage of my salary and investing it, socking it away for college funds, putting equity into my home, paying off debts, or just dropping it into my savings account.</p>

<p>As I’ve said before, it’s a hole you throw money down.</p>

<p>With only about 50% of citizens paying taxes, we have a very scary structure.</p>

<p>Contribute nothing = get alot in return.</p>

<p>Contribute alot = get nothing in return, but expected to give even more.</p>

4

<p>No surprise there, at least not to me. Then again, when I am interested in a policy, I research it.</p>

<p>The argument I constantly use is the majority are being taxed at the expense of the minority, but I guess when 50% are benefiting from the welfare state, it’s not the minority anymore.</p>

<p>The fundamental difference is that liberals think the poor are poor as the result of luck, not lack of effort, and that the rich do not work hard for their income. Until they realize that people work hard for their position in life, they will continue to cry to tax the rich. I don’t think people realize the rich are paying 40% or more of their income to the feds, on top of state and local taxes. </p>

<p>Personally, I am morally opposed to the income tax. It is property, and the only reason it is permissable is because of the 16th amendment. </p>

<p>I actually wrote a parody in my paper about implementing a grade tax, and of course the liberals wrongly accused me of calling the ALL poor people lazy. Granted, it did not in the least imply it. Funny enough, they accuse me of making a generalization, then go on to say the wealthy don’t work hard. The reason they are upset is because they think it’s all well and good to tax the rich, as long as they are not rich. The second it’s them paying the bill, they question the policy. Instead of admitting hypocricy, they resort to name calling and false accusations. Their favorite it “you’re calling all of the poor lazy.” Basically their only argument is an emotional one: it’s just the RIGHT thing to do. </p>

<p>The facts aren’t going to change a libarals position on the issue. They fully believe that the wealthy don’t earn what they have in life, and even if they do, they do not have a right to keep it. The second they are bankrolling the welfare state, and paying for the bailouts and health care bills (taxes must go up if we are ever to balance the budget), their views are probably going to change. The issue is even if a college student works, they are exempt from most, if not all, federal taxes. Therefor, the young don’t fully understand what it’s like to work hard and see your check decimated by taxes that are redistributed to people who may or may not be trying to improve their situation.</p>

<p>My view is everyone needs to contribute to society, equally. It is wrong to pin the responsibility on one class of people, when they have done nothing wrong.</p>

<p>I view taxes as immoral, in terms of it being a means for the government to do nothing and steal money from the hard working. Yes, some taxes need to exist to pay for necessities, but the constitution states that the reason for a tax must be “absolutely necessary.” We know that is not the case. </p>

<p>Liberals will change their mind when all taxes are raised because the government has sold our young generation down the river to pay for things we don’t need.</p>

5

<p>Been going around for awhile, but worth re-reading.</p>

<p>Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:</p>

<p>The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.</p>

<p>So, that’s what they decided to do.</p>

<p>The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, "I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.</p>

<p>The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.</p>

<p>And so:</p>

<p>The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).</p>

<p>Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.</p>

<p>“I only got a dollar out of the $20,“declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”</p>

<p>“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”</p>

<p>“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”</p>

<p>“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”</p>

<p>The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.</p>

<p>The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!</p>

<p>And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.</p>

<p>David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia</p>

<p>[Sound</a> Politics Public Blog: Bar Stool Economics](<a href=“http://soundpolitics.com/public/2007/04/bar_stool_economics.html]Sound”>http://soundpolitics.com/public/2007/04/bar_stool_economics.html)</p>

6

<p>^ </p>

<ol>
<li><p>That was a horrible analogy for 10,000 different reasons</p></li>
<li><p>The rich aren’t going to show up anymore? Oh no!</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Here’s a lesson for you, BigEast — the rich need the poor 10,000X more than the poor need the rich.</p>

<p>The rich exploit the poor for labor.
The rich also rely on the poor to buy their products.</p>

<p>Without them, they are screwed.</p>

<p>So go take your $1,000,000 and go live in Antarctica. Oh wait, who’s going to fix your plumbing there? Who is going to mow your yard? Who is going to keep your lights on? Who’s going to grow your food? Who’s going to get your water? YOU WILL, or NOBODY WILL! Because you have no labor to exploit!!</p>

<p>And all the money in the world suddenly becomes USELESS.</p>

<p>Even if you formed a colony of 12-20 rich people in antarctica, you’ll all still have to be either growing food or tending gardens or fixing pipes! Ha!</p>

<p>You have a lot to learn about the world.</p>

7

<p>^ The rich don’t need to physically move out of the country…they can simply relocate their business entities/personal assets outside of US tax law.</p>

8

<p>i don’t mind paying taxes so long as i get something back in return.</p>

9

<p>We need to remember, that it doesn’t take a “mass exodus” of tax payers to leave the table for it to have a profound affect.</p>

<p>Currently, as shown in the article only 50% of citizens pay taxes, of that 50%, 5% share the majority load. So even if a very small percentage of that 5% “walked away”, it would cause a major inbalance. </p>

<p>If we had an economy that was being funded by 80% of it’s citizens, it wouldn’t matter so much…then it would require a mass exodus, but not in this case.</p>

<p>[Who</a> pays taxes - and how much? A tax day perennial. - Apr. 15, 2009](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/15/pf/taxes/who_pays_most_least/]Who”>Who pays taxes - and how much? A tax day perennial. - Apr. 15, 2009)</p>

<p>"The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office. </p>

<p>Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes.</p>

<p>The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%."</p>

<p>So we are relying on 1% of our population to bring in 28% of our tax revenue, and in total, 5% of the population to bring in 69% of our tax revenue.</p>

<p>The bottom 50% pay nothing, but draw the most from entitlements that our country can’t continue to fiscally support.</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>Exploit? Really?</p>

11

<p>Yeah, how is giving a person a JOB exploitation?</p>

<p>God forbid we exploited more of these poor people by giving them jobs, that could possible lead to, GASP - independence.</p>

12

<p>The real travesty here is that so many people are in need of government aid. And government aid does not bring the poor out of poverty, it just sustains them there somewhat.</p>

<p>

Yes, the capitalist system is built upon the labor of the poor. The income gap is widening, as well.

</p>

<p>The income increases of the poor do not even keep up with inflation, meaning that the poor are getting poorer. With the cutting of taxes for the rich, income is flowing upward much more quickly, the “middle class” is eroding, and the poverty level increases.</p>

<p>No one has the right to be so rich that there are not enough resources for everyone else to even survive. Yet the rich have so much that it has become impossible for the poor to have enough. The United States is firmly following history, and if this continues, unrest in the poor will lead to the fall of the country. Thus it is, as it always has been. As John Kennedy said, “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”</p>

13

<p>

Not paying them enough, not giving them enough benefits, not giving them a say in the economy. “Wage slavery” is prevalent – people are tied to their jobs, for if they quit, they will have no money, lose their house, and have their family starve. So unless there is another company willing to hire a person with fair pay/benefits, the current employer can slash pay and benefits and the worker must stay, lest they lose everything in this capitalist society.</p>

<p>But doesn’t everyone have the right to life? Doesn’t the government have the duty to provide for it? Doesn’t the right to life entail the right to all things required to sustain life, such as food, water, shelter, safety, and medical care? Ah, but that’s socialism! Why should we have universal survival, equality, and a democratic economy? The rich are happy in their economic oligarchy.</p>

14

<p>^ The goal of a society shouldn’t be to make everyone wealthy, but to be independent.</p>

<p>Or at least live an independent life for as long as possible until they naturally deteriorate and can no longer contribure - then these entitlements could be provided.</p>

<p>However, we enable parts of our society to be cradle to the grave entitlement recipients and the cost of that is now hitting us big time, and tax payers are shouldering the load.</p>

<hr>

<h2>But doesn’t everyone have the right to life? Doesn’t the government have the duty to provide for it? Doesn’t the right to life entail the right to all things required to sustain life, such as food, water, shelter, safety, and medical care? ~ BillMc</h2>

<p>No it doesn’t, not entirely. The government can give a person a fish, but eventually that person needs to learn how to bait a hook and use a pole.</p>

15

<h2>Not paying them enough, not giving them enough benefits, not giving them a say in the economy. “Wage slavery” is prevalent ~ BillMC</h2>

<p>Ok, how much is enough? If we raise the minimum wage, it will just put companies out of business, is that what you want?</p>

<p>Low wage jobs are a good thing for many segments of our population, primarily very young, very old, and very unskilled.</p>

16

<p>Focusing just on income tax is a fraudulent argument. You need to compare the total tax burden. The working poor pay sales tax, SS tax, fees, etc.</p>

17

<h2>The rich are happy in their economic oligarchy. ~ BillMC</h2>

<p>Please, define who are the rich?</p>

<p>I’m certainly not rich, but I’m independent and provide for my family. </p>

<p>While I’m not rich, I certainly have more than many people, so in your opinion, since I’m “richer” than other people, I should take money out of my pocket and just give it to them?</p>

<p>Absurd.</p>

<p>Not everyone can be wealthy, but if a person has a shred of ambition, they can be independent - which would cure alot of problems in this country.</p>

<p>Your “give people everything they could possibly need” philosophy is so deeply flawed and economically impossible that only a moon-bat could agree with you.</p>

18

<p>The reason capitalism is successful is that you would have to compare it to all of the economic systems in history and ask yourself which improved the standard of living for everyone the most. The poorest people in a capitalist country today enjoy luxuries and freedom - brought on by economic, not political independence - that even the wealthiest people a hundred years ago would consider extraordinary. They might not have it as good as the wealthiest in the country, but they have it much better than the generations of serfs and slaves before them.</p>

19

<h2>Focusing just on income tax is a fraudulent argument. You need to compare the total tax burden. The working poor pay sales tax, SS tax, fees, etc. ~ Spurster</h2>

<p>As they should, however the disparity would be the same. The “rich” will still be paying a significantly greater amount, assuming they would also accumulate more “things.”</p>

<p>Also, if 50% of Americans are running an entitlement budget, the money they are paying in sales taxes is just money taken from the government, given back to the government…with no creation of wealth.</p>

<p>It’s just robbing Peter to pay Paul - except Peter and Paul share the same bank account.</p>

20

<p>With widening income disparity, it makes perfect sense that the percentage of those exempt from taxes (basically, a nice way of saying that they’re so poor that we’re better off not taking their money) is increasing while the percentage of those providing the most tax revenue is increasing.</p>

<p>Why are we assuming that if the ~50% of the tax-exempt population were to be taxed, they’d provide enough to significantly increase revenue? And why are we assuming that the top tax-providers (aka the very wealthy) haven’t seen such an increase in their overall wealth that even despite taxation, they’re still making as much if not more than before?</p>