(06-27-2012 04:11 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote: (06-27-2012 03:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: Wow. That's just unbelievable.
When welfare recipients are required to punch a clock and do ANYTHING for their pay, including simply taking care of what they are given... You can compare it to a GSA contract. Until then, the government is an employer like everyone else. Is President Obama on welfare?
Amazing how you right-wingers take the "government is an employer like everyone else" line when it suits you, then you run down government employees every opportunity you get and want to blame them for fiscal issues. The hypocrisy is epic.
More amazing that you denigrate someone who fights for this country because youre too much of a ***** to do it yourself, and then talk about the 3rd generation welfare recipient like they are gold.
(06-27-2012 04:38 PM)Max Power Wrote: (06-27-2012 09:40 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: You may have been responding to a few people, but you said "the right". Aren't you vehemently against profiling?
Because raising taxes is bad for the economy, and the rich don't typically claim much income relative to their increase in net worth.
And fraud is bad for the economy.
Why is it an either/or in your mind? Sounds to me like a pretty consistent argument. While you might argue tha welfare is good for the economy, certainly you wouldn't argue that fraud is?
But at the same time you guys posit yourselves as deficit hawks concerned with our nation's debt, and so picking your fights with food stamp fraud when it's less than $1B seems trivial, and ideologically driven.
I could make a list 200 items long about government waste, and while food stamps would be on it, it wouldn't be near the top of it... If by ideology you mean eliminating waste, you're right. If you mean anything else, I think you're projecting. I think it's stupid to run commercials, which cost money, to try and make people feel better about being on food stamps. Those who care would be embarrassed, and the who don't wont. I think thisnis one of hundreds of examples of poor decisions by the government... But it seems to be the one you are willing to engage on.
Quote:Raising taxes is bad for the economy, but it's least bad when you're taxing the rich, because they spend the least percentage of their income. And if you spend that revenue on items that have large multipliers (eg food stamps) it can be good for the economy.
You think like a poor person, not a rich one. Rich people, when faced with rising taxes, shelter more income because more things are viable now at the higher avoidance rate. As to multipliers, there is little added by fraud, and even less added by people being on assistance rather than a job. Nobody I see has seriously mentioned cutting off aid for families that need it... We're merely asking for efficient administration and a better definition of "need".
Quote:Quote:The fact that youd rather trade a billion in fraud for 50byn in receipts is immaterial, irrespective of the fact that the 750mm number is annually and iirc, the 50byn number is over a ten year period... If I'm wrongin that i apologize. It doesn't matter to my point so im not going to look it up. Raising taxes on the rich is not intended to cover the cost of welfare fraud, but of hundreds of billions in new spending. Thats not how you present a budget.
I'm not saying we should trade one for the other but rather that they should be prioritized. We can collect $5B/year at the stroke of a pen but instead the GOP wants to squabble about enforcement over $750MM worth of fraud.
"Intent" in a budget is a red herring. The new revenue can cover the cost of fraud, or we can clean up the fraud too and it can cover the cost of something else. The point is, when you're in the red revenue is good.
The GOP wants to squabble about fraud in general, and not merely in food stamps. It seems you only want to talk about food stamps as having waste...
I'd point out thatObama, against the wishes of many in his own party, extended the tax cuts in the wealthiest because he said it would hurt the economy. I don't want you to raise taxes because it furthers this class warfare argument while doing very little to solve any problems. If you discovered that all the wealthy people had an average income tax rate of 17%, and lowered their rate to 17% and eliminated all deductions (overly simple, sorry) you would put accountants and lawyers out of work, but boost the economy tremendously by eliminating tax shelters... Many of which defer taxes (making the revenue less) or send portions overseas (making the revenue on that zero). The cost of compliance would go down, the costif administering the irs would go down. I'm against raising taxes on the wealthy because they are smarter at managing tax burdens than you are, and they prove it every day. Your plan will backfire because you don't think like they do. Do as I suggest, and then raise it from 17 to 18 and I have less of a problem. The problem is, they get to decide what you call income. Understand that I don't prefer an income tax at all for this reason.... Butbifyou are willing to go to a much simpler tax plan, I'd take that over todays cluster - kcuf any day.
Quote:Quote:I don't like the government paying $600 for a hammer. I don't like raising taxes on anyone, and think an "income" tax on the wealthy is demostrably stupid. While I have other/better thoughts, things like luxury taxes and gas guzzler taxes on consumption are MUCH more effective means of getting money from the wealthy... Yet even John Kerry tried to avoid a million in taxes on his yacht. That's what the wealthy, even liberals, do.
Consumption taxes are regressive. Wealth taxes are the most progressive and desirable, and that's something we both agree on IIRC.
Not at all. Consumption taxes can be administered in a variety of ways to reduce/eliminate the regressive nature. You have a funny definition of wealth and wealth taxes, with your biggest position being that inflation hurts the wealthy the most. IMO, inflation is by far the mst regressive of taxes, because only a few incomes change with inflation, but many rates of return on investment do.
