For those who want it all except to pay for it

DOes this woman's plight really tug at our heart strings?

I think you should REALLY feel sorry for hedge fund managers, who pay "carried interest" tax at 15% on their multibillion dollar salaries, and no social security, when people like this poor woman, were she to work, would pay a far higher percentage - well into the upper 20% range - of their income in taxes.

Please.

RS, if you look at who benefits from transfer payments, it's the RED states: farm subsidies, military spending, etc. These Fox News vignettes are nice, but not at all related to the mathematical truth of the matter. Just look at New York, where NEW YORK CITY - Blue as Blue can be - subsidizes the rest of the state, one of the REDDEST in the country.

I read the NY Times article. How about this for a crazy idea- 19 and 20-year olds who are unmarried and working part-time or at Target or delivering pizzas shouldn't have children until they are more financially stable and independent, and expect government welfare to help pay for it.

steve's off the mark again. He needs to move beyond his 1970s era economic teachings and advance a bit.
NYS was not always like this. It was the tax and spend policies that started in the 60s and 70s and took off under Cuomo (a horrible governor) that drove business and industry out of upstate NY.

I have worked hard and made responsible decisions in my life to be financially independent. Why should my taxes go to programs that enable people to live irresponsibly?

And how would you enforce this? Jail time for pregnancy? Let's build more jails and throw everyone in them.

Whoops...that will cost even more than welfare.

Transfer payments hurt more than they help. And an agricultural subsidy or military subsidy is just as bad as a housing subisidy... that said

It's a typical liberal argument, shoot down fiscal responsibility by pointing out some rich fat cats.

That is why the hedge fund managers want to pay 15%. The total amount they pay is huge, but they see what it goes for. Other people's children multiplying at a fast rate. What is the chance this 22 year old is an illegal immigrant? And now has a US Citizen child that the mother can't provide for, that no father is providing for, that now the rich have to pay for.
What about the article about the 25 year old woman with two kids and a 75 year old grandmother. The kids need government support. The 75 year old needs government support. The woman seems to want to work, but she has to deal with the kids and the grandmother. If they have no food, if he grandmother doesn't get health care, maybe if the church supports contraception, maybe this pattern starts to slow doen.

cc has a hard time comprehending things. It isn't about enforcement, it is about reducing the amount of government welfare and entitlements.

But what happens when people get pregnant Illegally?

Who suggested making it illegal? How would you possibly enforce that?

ok cc, take it slow and try to comprehend. No one said anything about pregnancy being illegal. Just read that a few times to let it sink in before you make another stupid comment. Thanks.

Not sure I understand the attack against the hedge funds. In many ways hedge funds have acted more responsibly than than the banks, by being better risk managers. It's no surprise that the blow-ups were in the Government Sponsored Enterprises, Sovereign Wealth Funds and Publicly traded banks with cheap access to FDIC insured deposits and direct access to the Fed. The hedge funds were one of the financially backed voices of reason, proving that MBIA Citi, Lehman and the housing market were over-valued.

Like you are doing now?

The fact that Capital Gains, Income and Dividends are all taxed differently is the absurd part. And the program mentioned in the Times article may have been a good one, but in these times of necessary fiscal responsibility/austerity perhaps our elected officials should have put more effort into making sure the good programs were funded before coming up with new such as expanding health care.

how is it a liberal argument? the conservatives have been overspending and undertaxing like drunken sailors.

it's only fiscally irresponsible if the funds aren't available. but for the fiscal habits and ruinous economic decisions of the last decade it wouldn't be a fiscal issue now

I left out the other liberal argument, all the sins of the world are derived from 8 years of George W Bush.

how can you undertax? maybe you can say government is underspending and you need to not run a deficit. But how do you start out saying government undertaxes?

No.

Just two wars and the worst economy since the depression.

Under taxing might coming up with government initiatives without funding them, or punishing people who have built productive businesses. In the context of the poster's previous comments, I believe she referred to the latter, but if it was the former then there's a reasonable point being made.

2 wars and a bad economy don't change the 22 year old mother.

"The fact that Capital Gains, Income and Dividends are all taxed differently is the absurd part."

EXACTLY ... If you're in the 33% tax bracket, that progressive tax rate should apply to your income, regardless of how it was obtained: Capital Gains, Theft, Income, Fraud, Inheritance, Embezzlement, Gambling, Lobbying, or Dividends.

the liberals aren't complaining about the taxes. the conservatives want no services and low taxes. your title is wrong.

I'm too lazy to go find the charts that show that prosperity for the average person is lower during administrations with lower taxes but they're out there.

And yes bush and his asleep on the job administration along with Greenspan f'd this country something fierce. maybe you disagree?

How do high taxes change the 22 year old with a child?

ar- typical twisted liberal logic. Even if the government has the funds, it is harmful to spend them in a way that creates a cycle of dependency on welfare. Moral hazard.

cc, are you really this dense? I'm saying that if someone wants to make an irresponsible life decision, government (taxpayers) shouldn't pay for it.

If Bush were responsible, would this 22 year old low skill woman not have had a child 3 years ago?

ar, I assume you will include Clinton, Barney Frank and the Dem Congress in your (profane as usual) commentary?

good question rogerst. rs always claims to view the forest rather than the trees but he's happy to quote a random anecdote as long as he views it as supportive

but the real answer is that lower taxation tends to benefit the wealthy. and contrary to what the conservatives would like you to believe that stunts growth. in a healthier economy we have the means to provide assistance to encourage workforce participation. childcare assistance actually was a part of welfare reform designed to get more people to work and reduce transfer payments. quite the ironic example

The 19 year old could work. The 19 year old with a newborn will have trouble working unless there is assistance. She's irresponsible and so others have to accommodate that.

I know. Let's get rid of all safety-net programs and see what turning third-world does to the value of rs's condo!!

What?

And you're just latching onto one example. the artiicle also discusses food and shelter. I for one think my quality of life will be greatly reduced if we go third world. I guess you could argue that many situations are irresponsible but who are you to condemn?

Third world? No
Who am I to condemn? I didn't overspend. I didn't procreate without an ability to care for my offspring. That is who I am to condemn.

ar thinks that reducing entitlement spending that encourages bad behavior is "going third world". Typical twisted liberal logic.

One soldier for one year in Afghanistan costs one million dollars.

People begging in the street is third world.

What does this have to do with Afghanistan?

People presently beg in the streets.

If you are taking government handouts, taxpayers have a right to judge you.

Of course, ar loves handouts at all costs, so she tries to come up with all sorts of dishonest arguments to defend it.

I don't think she is the 22 year old.

Maybe we should condemn the unemployed who haven't saved enough to live without gov''t assistance. maybe we should condemn the children who weren't smart enough to be born to parents who could afford to feed them. maybe we should condemn anyone who hasn't been as smart and prudent as ourselves. get over yourself

No, I will actively condemn them for their irresponsibility. Including the child, who is likely to continue the cycle in 16 years if we don't make these condemnations.

No you are. You encourage bad behavior.

Condemning the child?

How many orphans have you gone out to feed, clothe and shelter this week?

The mother condemned the child. If the mother does that, why should I hold the child in higher regard than the mother does?

ar- that is idiotic. Are you really this intellectually unable to debate honestly?
I am not condemning anyone. I am saying that if a person wants to make irresponsible decisions, that government (taxpayers) should not foot the bill for it. This will lead to more fiscally responsible budgets, reduces burden on taxpayers, and more responsible behavior from more people since they know they can't get away with it by getting government handouts.

Presumably because you hold yourself to a higher standard.

I do hold myself to a higher standard.

To the extent that my taxes have been used to do so I haven't begrudged one cent. and I spent years volunteering at a major hospital doing play therapy for abused, neglected and failure to thrive infants and toddlers. And you?

Any this week?

How about in the last twenty seconds?

No, how about this week? Or after years, did she get tired?

My estimated taxes are due on the 15th.

You scorn the mother yet you deem her standards to be an acceptable level for your own views.

I scorn the mother. Her standards are not mine.

i do have to say that i am a liberal, but to a degree.

to provide child care for the 22 yr old who will earn minimal wage, will end up costing the gov't more then she'll be making. let her wait for 2 more yrs and then get a job. for now, give her some money to get some "edumucation" so that she'll be able to earn more then a minimum wage when her child enters school.

as for welfare, it's simple.... you have a child while you're on welfare = no additional money or take the child at birth and give to the thousands waiting to adopt. that's the only way to control. some of the people that i see, get pregnant and give birth just to increase their check.

Does it feel good to judge others?

What is your point of view on that?

LICcomm: "If you are taking government handouts, taxpayers have a right to judge you."

... absolutely, if that government handout is a home mortgage subsidy of any form. Filthy beggar!

You Rand Paul fans really have to look at the economic history of the 19th century, and all of the lessons learned during the Depression, to learn about why these mechanisms exist. The whole purpose of transfer payments is to smooth out economic cycles and make things more stable. Deflation - which is what is about to happen in southern Europe, and what happened in the US in the 30's, and Japan in the 90's - is one of the worst things that can happen in an economy, far worse than inflation, because it's a downward spiral that is very difficult to get out of.

I'm no economic liberal, nor am I a great fan of the welfare state, nor do I appreciate seeing all the people on food stamps buying more expensive food than I buy as happens on a routine basis, but I do know that history tells us that the opposite situation - everyone fending for themselves - is far worse.

What does history say about populations that procreate every 19 years without the father or the mother being able to support the child?

ab, you might want to do a search for the welfare reform act of 1996.

rogerst which population would that be?

Eliminate the mortgage deduction, and welfare for irresponsible decisions, and rent stabilization. Seems fair to me.

ar sees no problem with someone on welfare or living in public housing having more and more children and getting increased welfare.

ar, i know about workfare. it will be cheaper for the gov't to support this 22 yr old staying home and getting education and watching her child rather then sending her out to work at McDs and having to supoort her and her child and her child's child, etc for eternity.

McDonalds wants to hire this woman? On the biggest test she was irresponsible and created long-term consequences. McDonalds wants this person, why?

ab, I don't necessarily disagree. there's also a fairly high likelihood she wouldn't be able to get any job at this point

Exactly

the leper colony is too good for her

Eliminate:

"the mortgage deduction"

Agreed.

"rent stabilization"

Agreed.

"welfare for irresponsible decisions"

That's a little tougher, not black and white, but in general I agree. In the olden days, when my father grew up in the Queensbridge Houses, you had to have a job & not too many kids to live there. That changed; they should change it back.

I'm too lazy
-YES
charts that show that prosperity for the average person is lower during administrations
-CETERIS PARABUS. HIGHER TAXES DO NOT INCREASE PROSPERITY. BUT GO AHEAD ARGUE THE POINT

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

rs you're full of shit. I don't currently have a computer and don't feel like find stuff on the I-phone. but unlike you I don't have a reputation for misrepresenting sources and materials. I've seen the charts and when my computer arrives I'll find them

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

The only exceptions for the above that come to mind are when transactions between two people have the potential to harm third parties. A good example of the exception being pollution.

Maybe we should condemn the unemployed who haven't saved enough to live without gov''t assistance

OR MAYBE WE COULD CONDEMN THE SAVERS, BY INCREASING THE TAXES ON THEIR DIVIDENDS AND INVESTMENTS, WHICH ONLY HURT INVESTMENT AND DISCOURAGE SAVING

He also wrote that every citizen should be a soldier

"As much as this single mom’s plight tugs at our heart strings, using deficit financing to provide her with government subsidized child care is dangerous to her child’s health."

Are you really that big of a moron?

poor rs. worried about his capital gains taxes. once again, your title for this thread is inaccurate

He also wrote that every citizen should be a soldier

"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too
happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be
defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and
Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all
must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service
ascribed to its competent class. --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles
Eppes, 1814.

Sounds reasonable...

I'll miss you when you head off to Iraq

'll miss you when you head off to Iraq
bad retort. Not all military campaigns are worth undertaking, but a country whose citizens refuse
to serve will be a country that ceases to exist.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

Actually it was a fine retort. the "soldiers" don't get to choose the wars.

And stop with the Jefferson quotes. try some original thought for a change

Every citizen does not need to serve as long as you have enough poor citizen to fight for you.

With that said, if every citizen had to serve, perhaps we would not be as trigger happy. That is why some people want to bring back the military draft.

Sunday, well spoken.

I agree with T. Jefferson:

* government shall take from the mouth of management & ownership, not labor
* happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, and instead lay waste to the capital.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

"HIGHER TAXES DO NOT INCREASE PROSPERITY."

Actually, RS, it has been empirically proved that the wealthier people become, the more they CHOOSE to pay in taxes. I forget the name of the economist who proved this, but if you look at the wealthiest places in the world, with very few exceptions they are the places with the highest taxes. Because higher taxes buy more public goods, such as eduction and healthcare. It's true even in the US - the wealthiest states are the ones with the highest tax rates.

Unless you want to move to Alabama.

When they asked Ken Lewis why he wanted BofA to buy Fleet Bank, based in Boston with operations predominantly in the northeast US with low growth rates, he said, "Because that's where the money is."

If you want to see how the real world works, you'd be much better off quoting Alexander Hamilton than Thomas Jefferson. If we were a predominantly agricultural, slave-holding country then Jefferson's - and the Paul family's - ideas about economics would make sense. But they don't work in complex industrial and post-industrial economies.

Alan Greenspan kind of admitted as much.

"Not all military campaigns are worth undertaking, but a country whose citizens refuse
to serve will be a country that ceases to exist."

I guess someone forgot to tell that to 5 deferrment Cheney and Air National Guard Bush

Why does high-tax N.Y. have so many rich people?
Here's my question for folks who think slight changes in marginal tax rates will drive rich people to move to another country: How do you explain New York? According to the Tax Foundation, it's got the second-highest tax rates in the nation. And moving from one state to another isn't very hard. But there are plenty of rich people over there. And more seem to arrive every day!

Rich people actually have a lot of money, so you'd expect tax-rate determinism to be much more prevalent among people with middle-class incomes. But I've certainly never met anyone who's moved from one state to another to change their tax burden. Taxes just don't seem to be a huge driver of behavior, which given the importance of friends and family and culture and climate and commerce and employment and inertia and kids in school and everything else that binds us to where we live, is rather as you'd expect.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/why_does_high-tax_new_yoerk_ha.html

If people choose to pay taxes as they become wealthier, why is it necessary to mandate them? Even so, there is a difference between having a tax system and arguing for an increase in taxes.

Services people want from their tax dollars are not to support this cycle of reproduction and living off the dole of this 22 year old low skilled mother.

"Not all military campaigns are worth undertaking, but a country whose citizens refuse
to serve will be a country that ceases to exist."

I guess someone forgot to tell that to 5 deferrment Cheney and Air National Guard Bush

Or Bill Clinton. Or Richard Blumenthal. Or Barack Obama.

Rich people actually have a lot of money, so you'd expect tax-rate determinism to be much more prevalent among people with middle-class incomes. But I've certainly never met anyone who's moved from one state to another to change their tax burden.

Take a look at Julian Robertson.

Wasn't Obama like 5 years old during the Vietnam War?

I have an idea: How about we pay our service members at least half of what we pay the mercenaries in Iraq? Is that too much to ask for? Or are our service members inferior to Blackwater soldiers in some way?

Plenty of people move for tax reasons. retirees are the most obvious example

Q: Here's my question for folks who think slight changes in marginal tax rates will drive rich people to move to another country:

A- They do not need to move to another country, they could move to another state.See Below
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html

Charles Rangel has long argued for military service for all.

I guess someone forgot to tell that to 5 deferrment Cheney and Air National Guard Bush

Or Bill Clinton. Or Richard Blumenthal. Or Barack Obama.
-----------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON - Lawmaker Says Volunteer Military May be Overwhelmed by Military Challenges in Iran, North Korea and Syria requiring more troops who will have to be drafted

Congressman Charles Rangel today introduced new legislation to reinstate the military draft that will include draftees up to 42 years of age.
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementonDraft02142006.html