# Wealth Inequality In America...and its perception?



## elder999 (Oct 19, 2013)

Just watch, and post comments.....I don't really have one...


----------



## granfire (Oct 19, 2013)

wow.


----------



## pgsmith (Oct 19, 2013)

I guess I'm just surprised that people don't know that already. Too much reality TV maybe.


----------



## K-man (Oct 19, 2013)

I have pointed out this problem on other threads and then get accused of 'hating' America. It is a sad reality that this type of uneven spread of wealth will eventually bring the country to its knees.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2013)

I posted this in another discussion, but I think the points truly apply here because they explain how this all happened.  




Makalakumu said:


> I'm going to pull together a little data for everybody so that they can understand more clearly what is actually happening with this situation.





Makalakumu said:


> This Chart shows the growth in food stamp usage since 1970. It's topping out at 44 million, but the truth is that there are over 15 other food assistance programs that American's utilize, reducing some of the pressure on the food stamp program. So, this chart would actually be showing a steeper rise if we aggregated the data. According to the source I quoted in my earlier post, there are over 100 million utilizing government food assistance programs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2013)

I've said before that the most astonishing achievement of the modern GOP is that they have convinced the lower middle class that the rich people are being victimized and need to be defended.


----------



## K-man (Oct 21, 2013)

The people pulling the strings have done it well. It's called how to transfer the wealth from Middle class to the Wealthy and in the process increase the Poor. The secret is to keep the Middle class happy while they are being fleeced, that way they think they are better of than the Poor. Then the Poor work for almost nothing to compound the wealth of the Wealthy. As the Poor work they get taxed to pay for their services but the Wealthy process their earnings offshore so they get to keep almost everything.

Yep, I think I can get that ... sadly.
:disgust:


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2013)

K-man said:


> The people pulling the strings have done it well. It's called how to transfer the wealth from Middle class to the Wealthy and in the process increase the Poor. The secret is to keep the Middle class happy while they are being fleeced, that way they think they are better of than the Poor. Then the Poor work for almost nothing to compound the wealth of the Wealthy. As the Poor work they get taxed to pay for their services but the Wealthy process their earnings offshore so they get to keep almost everything.
> 
> Yep, I think I can get that ... sadly.
> :disgust:



All of this happens because the wealthy control the government.  They have used government power to take other people's money, limit their competition, inflate the currency to pay for things that benefit them, and in some cases outright murder people who oppose their policies.  

Some people are convinced that all that needs to happen is for the small people to wake up and use their democratic institutions to take the power back.  I am not so sure.  I think when you consider the fact that the power of government has always ended up in the hands of elite, you'll realize that no revolution in the power structure can actually change things.

The only thing that could really make a difference, IMO, is to drastically reduce the size and scope of government power, so that elites have far less control over the economy and people's lives.  

I realize that this is not the message that Liberals want to hear, but it's probably the only real step we can make in restoring some semblance of balance to the system.

Throw the Ring into the Fire so the powerful cannot use it against you.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 21, 2013)

My grandfather never finished the eighth grade. He worked in Ventura county in the 1930's driving a team of horses for $1.25 a day, 40 years later, when he retired he was running what was then the largest lemon packing house in the world. 
Oprah Winfrey was born to an unwed teenage mother, she went on to become a BILLIONAIRE.
Is luck involved, yeah, but, like the man said, The harder I work, the luckier I get...


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2013)

Big Don said:


> My grandfather never finished the eighth grade. He worked in Ventura county in the 1930's driving a team of horses for $1.25 a day, 40 years later, when he retired he was running what was then the largest lemon packing house in the world.
> Oprah Winfrey was born to an unwed teenage mother, she went on to become a BILLIONAIRE.
> Is luck involved, yeah, but, like the man said, The harder I work, the luckier I get...


It's like the lottery, otherwise known as the poor person's pension.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 21, 2013)

Steve said:


> It's like the lottery, otherwise known as the poor person's pension.



You're right, there is absolutely no reason anyone should ever work to better their self or their position in life. They should just accept they are peons and worship those above them, while begging for scraps


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2013)

When I bought my first car, I paid less than a dollar a gallon for gas.

Here is a chart that tracks gasoline prices since I was old enough to drive.



When you compare that to what the price of gas would be if it was measured in gold, something very interesting happens.

View attachment $gas-1995.png

Now you start to see exactly how much inflation has robbed Americans of their wealth.  The price of gas measured in gold is actually dropping.  This is occurring because the technology getting out of the ground is getting better and better.  

The value of the dollar is eroding and that is truly what is driving up the price of gas.

So, what does this do to the average American family?

You can work harder and longer now for dollars that are eroding in value.  This pushes American families out of the Middle Class.


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2013)

Big Don said:


> You're right, there is absolutely no reason anyone should ever work to better their self or their position in life. They should just accept they are peons and worship those above them, while begging for scraps


LOL...  project much?   Don't give up, Don.  You can do it.   I'm sure you'll be the next Oprah.


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> When I bought my first car, I paid less than a dollar a gallon for gas.
> 
> Here is a chart that tracks gasoline prices since I was old enough to drive.
> 
> ...


And collusion, price fixing and an intentional lack of modernization in the refineries has nothing to do with the price of gas.  Come on...


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 21, 2013)

Steve said:


> I've said before that the most astonishing achievement of the modern GOP is that they have convinced the lower middle class that the rich people are being victimized and need to be defended.


I think everyone needs to be defended the rich the middle class and the poor.  You apparently believe we can keep taking more and more from the rich and they will just say "ok"


----------



## Big Don (Oct 21, 2013)

Steve said:


> LOL...  project much?   Don't give up, Don.  You can do it.   I'm sure you'll be the next Oprah.



Life was never easy for me. I was born, a poor black child


----------



## Big Don (Oct 21, 2013)

Steve said:


> And collusion, price fixing and an intentional lack of modernization in the refineries has nothing to do with the price of gas.  Come on...


Environmental assho, er activists having nothing to do with it at all...


----------



## granfire (Oct 21, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Environmental assho, er activists having nothing to do with it at all...



Not really.
If they did, gas would be much higher. 

nah,we are being milked by the big oil companies, while they make record profit, they also stash away that government money all while not paying taxes...
Please remember: Before Hurricane Katrina gas was a 1,50....after KAtrina it was 4 bucks. On top of that, the prices did not go down until the market crashed. That was the only time I can remember that the gas prices dropped around Thanksgiving! 

let's face it, they got us by the short and curlies...
(BTW: 'green' technologies could be a growth market)


----------



## Big Don (Oct 21, 2013)

granfire said:


> Not really.
> If they did, gas would be much higher.
> 
> nah,we are being milked by the big oil companies, while they make record profit, they also stash away that government money all while not paying taxes...
> ...


The evil oil companies put in all the effort and government, local, state, federal, take 4 TIMES what those evil oil pumping bastards do...
Yep, the Oil companies are soaking us...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2013)

Steve said:


> And collusion, price fixing and an intentional lack of modernization in the refineries has nothing to do with the price of gas.  Come on...



What's interesting about this, when I really looked into it, is that technology has been getting better. Oil companies are getting out of the ground for less energy despite the difficulty in finding new supplies. This will be a problem later, but that's a subject for another thread. So, why are people getting soaked for over 4.5 times the price gas was twenty years ago when the "real" price of oil has actually gone down?

The dollar has been tanking in value. If you look at the debt chart I posted above and consider all of the spending the government is doing off the books, those new dollars are stripping away the value of every existing dollar. The inflation has hit commodities and the stock market, because that's where the big banks on Wall Street can make their real money betting. This is one of the major factors driving the inequality of wealth in America. 

Big corporations control the government and control the printing presses. They steal everyone else's wealth by inflating the value of money. In essence, this is exactly like a tax, but this one goes straight to the banksters.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I think everyone needs to be defended the rich the middle class and the poor.  You apparently believe we can keep taking more and more from the rich and they will just say "ok"



Nope, I think people all need to stop taking other people's money and start using things that really are money...rather than the toilet paper the government produces.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Nope, I think people all need to stop taking other people's money and start using things that really are money...rather than the toilet paper the government produces.


Yes because sending a gold nugget to my mortgage co. is way easier then my banks auto bill pay feature.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes because sending a gold nugget to my mortgage co. is way easier then my banks auto bill pay feature.



A gold backed, privately managed, competing currency would suffice if you are worried about sending physical gold. Bit coin could work as well.


----------



## granfire (Oct 22, 2013)

Big Don said:


> The evil oil companies put in all the effort and government, local, state, federal, take 4 TIMES what those evil oil pumping bastards do...
> Yep, the Oil companies are soaking us...



Keep believing that right wing propaganda.


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I think everyone needs to be defended the rich the middle class and the poor.  You apparently believe we can keep taking more and more from the rich and they will just say "ok"


I think everyone should be held accountable to contribute their fair share.  The question is, what's fair?  You and I might disagree a bit, although I'm confident we are both many steps to the right of socialism.


----------



## pgsmith (Oct 22, 2013)

Big Don said:


> The evil oil companies put in all the effort and government, local, state, federal, take 4 TIMES what those evil oil pumping bastards do...
> Yep, the Oil companies are soaking us...



  Mmmmmmmmmm ..... good koolaid!


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> I think everyone should be held accountable to contribute their fair share.  The question is, what's fair?  You and I might disagree a bit, although I'm confident we are both many steps to the right of socialism.


What I feel is fair is everyone pays the same amount.  Either as a sales tax and scrap income tax or a flat % for everyone.  I think "well you make this much so you pay the % oh and you over there you make that much so you pay that %". This argument that well your rich so you can afford it is wrong.  Who cares what someone can afford that should have no bearing on anything.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 22, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> Mmmmmmmmmm ..... good koolaid!





> [h=1]Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit[/h]


Those Bastards!


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 22, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Those Bastards!



With numbers like those, I think it becomes why multinational corporations would want to have more control over national governments. On average, for every corporate dollar spent, corporations get 200 dollars back.  It comes in the form of tax breaks, incentives, government contracts, grants, bailouts, you name it.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/lobbying-is-a-lucrative-invest.html



> Your investments might have suffered as a result of the financial crisis, but Big Business has found one successful investment that may be recession-proof: lobbying. Using CRP data on lobbying expenditures by S&P 500 firms, three finance professors recently published a report stating that for* every dollar a company spends on lobbying, its value increases by $200*. The study, entitled "Determinants and Effects of Corporate Lobbying," was released on June 15.



So, liberals, do you really think you have the power to wrest the government from the hands of the multinationals with all of their money, lobbyists, and clout in DC?  

Ninja please...


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What I feel is fair is everyone pays the same amount.  Either as a sales tax and scrap income tax or a flat % for everyone.  I think "well you make this much so you pay the % oh and you over there you make that much so you pay that %". This argument that well your rich so you can afford it is wrong.  Who cares what someone can afford that should have no bearing on anything.


Ballen, if you're for a flat percentage, then we actually do agree.  I'm all for a flat rate income tax on ALL income, including both wages and other income including dividends, royalties, honoraria, stipends, capital gains, estates and anything else.  That's the epitome of fair, in my opinion.  

But, with respect, you agree in theory that everyone should pay a flat percentage.  However, in past threads, you have argued vehemently that people at the top have paid a fixed dollar amount that you consider more than their share.  In other words, when we've talked about actual percentages paid, you've argued that the wealthiest among us have paid more than their fair share, even if they paid less as a percentage of their gross income.  

As I said, though, we both agree that everyone should pay their fair share.  We just disagree a little bit on what's fair.  I think a flat percentage of all income is more than fair.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> Ballen, if you're for a flat percentage, then we actually do agree.  I'm all for a flat rate income tax on ALL income, including both wages and other income including dividends, royalties, honoraria, stipends, capital gains, estates and anything else.  That's the epitome of fair, in my opinion.
> 
> But, with respect, you agree in theory that everyone should pay a flat percentage.  However, in past threads, you have argued vehemently that people at the top have paid a fixed dollar amount that you consider more than their share.  In other words, when we've talked about actual percentages paid, you've argued that the wealthiest among us have paid more than their fair share, even if they paid less as a percentage of their gross income.
> 
> As I said, though, we both agree that everyone should pay their fair share.  We just disagree a little bit on what's fair.  I think a flat percentage of all income is more than fair.



No the rich pay MUCH high % then the poor.  The poor pay Nothing. 

 Capital Gains is a double tax. You were already taxed on that income when you originally earn it.
Estate taxes as well.  When that money was earned it was taxed just because I die and give it to my kids why should it be taxed again?


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Thats why if I had my choice Im more for a national sales tax.  Its a win win for everyone.  You get taxes collected for illegal and under the table income, Tourist income, and if you want to save your money there is no penality, the rich would pay more since they buy more expensive things then the poor.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 22, 2013)

What if the system has progressed to a certain point and your preferences really don't matter?  What if the special interests are so entrenched that there really is no possibility of shaking loose their grip on the system?  What if you discover that it's been like that for a long time and that they have been using the system to "make you pay your fair share" (I mean rob) instead of vice versa?

The public is so childlike.  They think they can walk up to a master thief and steal from him, but end up getting stolen from in return in such a way that they don't even know they've lost something.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> What if the system has progressed to a certain point and your preferences really don't matter?


Dude chill out were talking on a internet forum


> What if the special interests are so entrenched that there really is no possibility of shaking loose their grip on the system?  What if you discover that it's been like that for a long time and that they have been using the system to "make you pay your fair share" (I mean rob) instead of vice versa?


Yawn


> The public is so childlike.  They think they can walk up to a master thief and steal from him, but end up getting stolen from in return in such a way that they don't even know they've lost something.


so fix it for us poor childlike public, oh wise one.  ALL HAIL to the great and wise Mak  the only one that can see whats really going on around here


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Dude chill out were talking on a internet forum
> 
> Yawn
> 
> so fix it for us poor childlike public, oh wise one.  ALL HAIL to the great and wise Mak  the only one that can see whats really going on around here



Everyone knows that both major parties are bought and paid for.  You can change the figureheads, but the underlying policies really don't change, no matter how damaging.

And now, because of what I posted in this thread, you can either accept or ignore the fact that the uber-elite have used government to take your money since before you were born.  It's up to you.


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No the rich pay MUCH high % then the poor.  The poor pay Nothing.
> 
> Capital Gains is a double tax. You were already taxed on that income when you originally earn it.
> Estate taxes as well.  When that money was earned it was taxed just because I die and give it to my kids why should it be taxed again?


There are people who earn in the top 20% who pay zero income tax.  Did you know that?  It's available on the IRS.gov website, if you're interested.  Surely, you're as upset about those freeloaders as you are about the people at the bottom!  I know I am.  Or do you think that the rich are being victimized by the middle class?

So, I'll say this again.  I agree that a flat percentage would be VERY fair, provided it is a tax on ALL income.   I will also say again that we agree that everyone should pay their fair share, but we disagree at least somewhat on what is fair.  But regardless, neither of us is close to socialism.


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Dude chill out were talking on a internet forum
> 
> Yawn
> 
> so fix it for us poor childlike public, oh wise one.  ALL HAIL to the great and wise Mak  the only one that can see whats really going on around here


Ballen, I don't think your sarcasm is helpful.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> Ballen, I don't think your sarcasm is helpful.



SO ban me


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Everyone knows that both major parties are bought and paid for.  You can change the figureheads, but the underlying policies really don't change, no matter how damaging.
> 
> And now, because of what I posted in this thread, you can either accept or ignore the fact that the uber-elite have used government to take your money since before you were born.  It's up to you.


I had no money before I was born and I still have most of it left so they are doing a bad job at it


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> There are people who earn in the top 20% who pay zero income tax.  Did you know that?  It's available on the IRS.gov website, if you're interested.  Surely, you're as upset about those freeloaders as you are about the people at the bottom!  I know I am.  Or do you think that the rich are being victimized by the middle class?


Who are these people?  Show me these rich that pay nothing because Ill show you MILLIONS of poor that pay the same amount.  I think we both agree the tax code is broken so Im  not sure we have an argument here.  


> So, I'll say this again.  I agree that a flat percentage would be VERY fair, provided it is a tax on ALL income.   I will also say again that we agree that everyone should pay their fair share, but we disagree at least somewhat on what is fair.  But regardless, neither of us is close to socialism.


I just dont think double taxes are fair and they only exist as a means to attack the rich.


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Who are these people?  Show me these rich that pay nothing because Ill show you MILLIONS of poor that pay the same amount.  I think we both agree the tax code is broken so Im  not sure we have an argument here.
> 
> I just dont think double taxes are fair and they only exist as a means to attack the rich.



I've posted the stats before, with links directly to the source.  If you're really interested, I am 100% confident you can find the information. 

Regarding double taxation, a sales tax is the ultimate in double taxation.  I'm not sure why you're okay with that and not with double tax on other things.  Doesn't make sense to me.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> I've posted the stats before, with links directly to the source.  If you're really interested, I am 100% confident you can find the information.
> 
> Regarding double taxation, a sales tax is the ultimate in double taxation.  I'm not sure why you're okay with that and not with double tax on other things.  Doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



How is a sales tax double tax? I dont follow


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I had no money before I was born and I still have most of it left so they are doing a bad job at it



Every dollar the US government goes into debt before you were born is a tax levied upon you.  The government stole my money before I even had it so they could pay for Vietnam and the social programs of the 60s.  Talk about No Taxation without Representation!

But really, what I'm talking about is the process of money creation, who gets to use those dollars first, and the ultimate effect of that new money on the total value of our money as a whole.  This is a hidden regressive tax that redistributes wealth to the top of the pyramid.  Our whole political system is a shell game based on hiding this fact from us.  Both parties scream at each other, nothing major changes, and our wealth is redistributed by the force of government.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Every dollar the US government goes into debt before you were born is a tax levied upon you.  The government stole my money before I even had it so they could pay for Vietnam and the social programs of the 60s.  Talk about No Taxation without Representation!
> 
> But really, what I'm talking about is the process of money creation, who gets to use those dollars first, and the ultimate effect of that new money on the total value of our money as a whole.  This is a hidden regressive tax that redistributes wealth to the top of the pyramid.  Our whole political system is a shell game based on hiding this fact from us.  Both parties scream at each other, nothing major changes, and our wealth is redistributed by the force of government.



Dude who you telling?  I've been saying all along we can't keep borrowing 600 billion a year and survive.  I say lower our credit rating so people stop loaning us money and force us to make cuts.  Neither side is serious about cuts because they don't need to.  They can just borrow the difference.  Stop borrowing and start raising taxes and see how fast we toss all the bums out of Washington and demand fiscal responsibility


----------



## pgsmith (Oct 22, 2013)

Big Don said:


> *Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit*
> Those Bastards!



  Don't you get dizzy when they spin the facts like that? Wheeeeeeeeeeee ........ 

  So in essence, you're saying that if Bill Gates made a billion dollars, but paid 500 million in taxes to East Latvia, then he shouldn't have to pay his US taxes right? Or is that not the spin you were going for?


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> Don't you get dizzy when they spin the facts like that? Wheeeeeeeeeeee ........
> 
> So in essence, you're saying that if Bill Gates made a billion dollars, but paid 500 million in taxes to East Latvia, then he shouldn't have to pay his US taxes right? Or is that not the spin you were going for?


How much of that billion did he make in the US?  Why should the US get to tax money he didn't make in the US?


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve where can I find the numbers of the 20% not paying taxes at all. I've been looking and can't find them?  Not saying it didn't happen with the clowns we got running Washington anything is possible


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Steve where can I find the numbers of the 20% not paying taxes at all. I've been looking and can't find them?  Not saying it didn't happen with the clowns we got running Washington anything is possible



I haven't looked in the last few months.  I'd recommend looking here for related threads and following the links there. If I have some time, I might try to find the specific tables for you.

Rest assured, there are an alarming number of people making an alarming amount of money and paying very little in the way of income tax.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> I haven't looked in the last few months.  I'd recommend looking here for related threads and following the links there. If I have some time, I might try to find the specific tables for you.
> 
> Rest assured, there are an alarming number of people making an alarming amount of money and paying very little in the way of income tax.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Rest assured there are 10s of millions that don't pay.  At least the rich that don't pay don't also take


----------



## CNida (Oct 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Who are these people?  Show me these rich that pay nothing because Ill show you MILLIONS of poor that pay the same amount.  I think we both agree the tax code is broken so Im  not sure we have an argument here.
> 
> I just dont think double taxes are fair and they only exist as a means to attack the rich.



Is it fair to tax the rich double? No, absolutely not. Even if they can pay it. Is it fair that they can qualify for a tax exemption under bull-crap pretenses? No. Is it fair that they can handle their finances outside the US to avoid paying taxes on a technicality? No.

I dont like the argument that the poor don't pay taxes either. The difference between poor and rich being that the poor dont pay taxes because they cant afford it, and the rich can afford to pay taxes but seem to feel like they shouldn't have to for some reason or another.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Rest assured there are 10s of millions that don't pay.  At least the rich that don't pay don't also take


Your making me nauseous.  You honestly don't think that the richest benefit at the tax payer's expense?  Come on, Ballen.  You're killing me.  They take all kinds of things.  They're just different things.  Call them incentives, tax breaks, loopholes, grants, exemptions or any number of other things.  As I've said over and over in the past, if a flat tax were advantageous to the richest among us, we would have it already.  

http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-soi/11in35tr.xls

According to that table, there were 41,585 returns filed at a 0% rate for people who made over $100k AGI.  Almost 1000 were over $1mil AGI.  

Over 19 million returns with an adjusted gross income over $100k were filed at 10%.  Of those, over 282,000 were over $1million dollars.

I don't know about you, but I paid a lot more than 10% in income tax, and I make one hell of a lot less than $1million dollars per year, even gross.

If you want to dig around, you can find all sorts of cool stuff here:  http://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Stats-2


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> SO ban me


Whoa.  Just saw this.  Damn.  I thought we were bros.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

CNida said:


> Is it fair to tax the rich double? No, absolutely not. Even if they can pay it. Is it fair that they can qualify for a tax exemption under bull-crap pretenses? No. Is it fair that they can handle their finances outside the US to avoid paying taxes on a technicality? No.


They don't make the rules they just follow them.  Write your congressman or better yet stop reelecting them.


> I dont like the argument that the poor don't pay taxes either. The difference between poor and rich being that the poor dont pay taxes because they cant afford it, and the rich can afford to pay taxes but seem to feel like they shouldn't have to for some reason or another.


So I can't afford my taxes either but I still pay.  Who says what you can and can't afford.  It shouldn't matter.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> Your making me nauseous.  You honestly don't think that the richest benefit at the tax payer's expense?  Come on, Ballen.  You're killing me.  They take all kinds of things.  They're just different things.  Call them incentives, tax breaks, loopholes, grants, exemptions or any number of other things.  As I've said over and over in the past, if a flat tax were advantageous to the richest among us, we would have it already.
> 
> http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-soi/11in35tr.xls
> 
> ...



So what your saying is they followed the rules and paid what they were allowed to pay?  Go figure.  I do the same thing.  I try to find every loophole and deduction I can.  Even more reason to scrap the income tax and get a sales tax


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> Whoa.  Just saw this.  Damn.  I thought we were bros.



We are but I'm talking to a guy that claimed the Constitution didn't apply to him because he never signed or agreed to it.  So sarcasim was much better then what I wanted to say


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So what your saying is they followed the rules and paid what they were allowed to pay?  Go figure.  I do the same thing.  I try to find every loophole and deduction I can.  Even more reason to scrap the income tax and get a sales tax



Wait.  So when a rich person pays zero tax, it's following the rules, but when a poor person does it, it's freeloading?  Are you suggesting that the poor folks who pay zero income tax are breaking the rules?  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> Are you suggesting that the poor folks who pay zero income tax are breaking the rules?
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


No


----------



## Big Don (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> I don't know about you, but I paid a lot more than 10% in income tax, and I make one hell of a lot less than $1million dollars per year, even gross.


10% of a million, is quite a bit more than 10% of what you make then, isn't it, so, the evil rich are still paying more than you...


----------



## Big Don (Oct 22, 2013)

Conservatives look at the rich, and ask themselves how they can achieve the same success, Liberals look at the rich and demand the same results without the same effort.


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

Big Don said:


> 10% of a million, is quite a bit more than 10% of what you make then, isn't it, so, the evil rich are still paying more than you...



What's zero percent of a million, don?

And I thought paying the same percentage was "fair." As I said before, it's okay if we disagree on what fair is, but in my opinion, if I make $100,000 and you make $1,000,000 paying the same percent of our income as tax is fair.  If you pay 10% and I pay 15%, I believe you aren't pulling your weight.  In other words, you'd be the freeloader.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Big Don (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> What's zero percent of a million, don?
> 
> And I thought paying the same percentage was "fair." As I said before, it's okay if we disagree on what fair is, but in my opinion, if I make $100,000 and you make $1,000,000 paying the same percent of our income as tax is fair.  If you pay 10% and I pay 15%, I believe you aren't pulling your weight.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Yet, you seem to be OK with half of the country not pulling their weight.


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Yet, you seem to be OK with half of the country not pulling their weight.



Nope.  I'm all for a flat rate income tax.    You see what you want to see.  I've said so consistently for years.  

But you didn't answer the question.  How much is zero percent of a million?  Doesn't it make you mad that freeloaders are mooching?  Oh yeah...  They're rich...  They're the victims.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Jaeimseu (Oct 22, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Conservatives look at the rich, and ask themselves how they can achieve the same success, Liberals look at the rich and demand the same results without the same effort.



Do you REALLY believe this?

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Oct 22, 2013)

Jaeimseu said:


> Do you REALLY believe this?
> 
> Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk



Look around, if you don't believe it you're either delusional or dishonest.


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Look around, if you don't believe it you're either delusional or dishonest.



It's a simple question, don.  Is a rich person who makes a million and pays zero tax a freeloader?  Doesn't that make you angry? Yes or no...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> It's a simple question, don.  Is a rich person who makes a million and pays zero tax a freeloader?  Doesn't that make you angry? Yes or no...
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Do the millions of poor that pay nothing and take Govt assistance freeloaders?  do they make you angry?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 23, 2013)

What if paying zero taxes somehow is a good thing rich or poor?


----------



## granfire (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Do the millions of poor that pay nothing and take Govt assistance freeloaders?  do they make you angry?



why do you begrudge them their having nothing?

They don't go anywhere, do nothing. They consume. That means they spend money.


On the other hand, the top 2%....off-shore accounts do not help the country. The CEOs you defend have damaged the economy. Don't believe me? Look up K-Mart and Enron. And those are just the tip of the iceberg! 

You are defending people who take away the jobs of the poor people. The manufacturing jobs, heck, even the mildly skilled jobs like customer service, giving them to some folks on the other side of the globe, so they can save labor cost and maximize their bottom line, all while not paying taxes. Where does that play into your world picture?
So far the bottom part of the social pyramid is getting screwed and charged for it. Figuratively speaking. 

I am all for fairer taxes: I settle for the money bags paying the same % in taxes that I do. 
Oh, I know, those 4% points they have to thow into the bucket extra will be much more than my contribution, probably for my lifetime, but you said you wanted fair taxes....In case you wonder where my numbers came from: Ole Mitt reportedly paid about 14% taxes, Yours truly pays roughly 18%. Fair? 

so far what is happening: Schools are being stripped of money, leaving those with no alternatives (AKA money) to suffer in ignorance. Instead we build more jails. Logic at work....

but while we doom the low end to remain poor (all the different mechanisms at work, going past the scope of this thread) we also begrudge them the measly pennies, the crumbs off society's table.
Yes, I know there are carrier poor who milk the system. But I bet you, for each who does that, there are plenty who do not. Who do not flaunt their status, but adhere to the rules. Because they know very well the scorn of people, not unlike yourself, who judge them harshly, without knowing a single thing about them and their circumstance.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

1st before you jump into something read what I wrote.  I said the system is broke and needs to be scrapped in exchanged for a federal sales tax.  Then everyone pays the same and you can't hide money because there is no reason to hide it.  

2nd Mitt paid lower % because he wasn't paying income taxes.  He was paying taxes on interest earned on investments.  He already paid income tax on that same money years ago when he earned it so in reality that money is being taxed twice

3rd our punitive tax system against success is one reason these jobs are moved overseas.  The more success you make the higher your tax burden.  Yet you loose money its a tax deduction.  The tax system is flawed.  

4th the poor that pay nothing also take more govt services and tax dollars then a rich person that's paying a lower %.  At least the rich guy isn't taking tax payers money for his cell phone bill, rent, food, medical costs.


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Do the millions of poor that pay nothing and take Govt assistance freeloaders?  do they make you angry?



I've already said that I'm for a flat tax, and im not trying blatently to avoid acknowledging an obvious double standard.  

So, how about it.  Ballen?  Don?  Do you even have it in you to acknowledge that there are thousands of people to make a lot of money who are also freeloaders.  I know it challenges your preconception that the poor are the mooches and the rich are the victims.  And I have to admit, the gyrations you're willing to go through to avoid it is wild.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Jaeimseu (Oct 23, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Look around, if you don't believe it you're either delusional or dishonest.



When I look around I can see that there are many many people who will have nothing even if they work harder than some rich people. Many of these people aren't trying to get rich with less effort. They just want to feed their families, and some need a little help to do it.

To say thay conservatives want to work hard and liberals want a free ride is ridiculous, and I'm not a lefty. I suspect that most "liberals" simply want to make the pursuit of happiness "fair". Right now, the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, with few exceptions. 

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> I've already said that I'm for a flat tax, and im not trying blatently to avoid acknowledging an obvious double standard.
> 
> So, how about it.  Ballen?  Don?  Do you even have it in you to acknowledge that there are thousands of people to make a lot of money who are also freeloaders.  I know it challenges your preconception that the poor are the mooches and the rich are the victims.  And I have to admit, the gyrations you're willing to go through to avoid it is wild.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I already told you I'm for a national sales tax so nobody gets away without paying.  The gyrations you go through to blast 40000 rich guys and give passes to Millions of poor for doing the same thing is wild


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

Jaeimseu said:


> When I look around I can see that there are many many people who will have nothing even if they work harder than some rich people. Many of these people aren't trying to get rich with less effort. They just want to feed their families, and some need a little help to do it.
> 
> To say thay conservatives want to work hard and liberals want a free ride is ridiculous, and I'm not a lefty. I suspect that most "liberals" simply want to make the pursuit of happiness "fair". Right now, the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, with few exceptions.
> 
> Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk



So how does the Govt level the playing field?


----------



## CNida (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> They don't make the rules they just follow them.  Write your congressman or better yet stop reelecting them.
> 
> So I can't afford my taxes either but I still pay.  Who says what you can and can't afford.  It shouldn't matter.



Obviously you can afford them or you wouldn't be paying them. 
I'm not talking about the lower class derelicts who refuse to pay taxes. I'm talking about the ones who legitimately can't pay them.

Who decides what you can and cant afford? You tell me. But you're right. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day, if a person can't afford to pay the tax, they simply can't pay. 


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## CNida (Oct 23, 2013)

Jaeimseu said:


> When I look around I can see that there are many many people who will have nothing even if they work harder than some rich people. Many of these people aren't trying to get rich with less effort. They just want to feed their families, and some need a little help to do it.
> 
> To say thay conservatives want to work hard and liberals want a free ride is ridiculous, and I'm not a lefty. I suspect that most "liberals" simply want to make the pursuit of happiness "fair". Right now, the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, with few exceptions.
> 
> Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk



Its more accurate to say "The rich get richer and the poor get prison". Thats actually a book and a damn interesting read.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

CNida said:


> Obviously you can afford them or you wouldn't be paying them.


I have no choice they take it from my check before I ever see it. I think if people actually had to write a check for their tax bills they wouldn't be so quick to give the govt so much of our money.  We would hold them more accountable


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I already told you I'm for a national sales tax so nobody gets away without paying.  The gyrations you go through to blast 40000 rich guys and give passes to Millions of poor for doing the same thing is wild


So then, you're agreeing with me that anyone who makes a lot of money and pays no income tax is a freeloader?  

No gyrations on my part.  Where have I given anyone a free pass?  I may have missed it, and if you can quote me giving anyone a free pass, I'd appreciate it.  The disconnect that you can't see here is that you rail in this thread and others about the millions of people who are, literally, living hand to mouth, and you say I'm "blasting" rich guys.  It's genuinely amusing to me that you are unwilling to acknowledge that it's freeloading at the top.  And the math is such that the guys at the top who pay no taxes are likely costing America more than the millions at the bottom, because of the inequality that was highlighted in the first post of this thread.

Watching you guys wrestle with this is like watching rhetorical gymnastics.  It reminds me of the Martin Short character from the old SNL skits, nervous and sweating, saying, "I didn't say that.  You said that.  I'm not defensive.  You're the ones who are being defensive.  It's not me... it's him."


----------



## pgsmith (Oct 23, 2013)

Just a few thoughts to throw in the mix, my opinions only  ...

  While I agree completely that the current tax system is seriously broken, I don't believe a flat tax would work because it would be very difficult to determine exactly what should be considered income for tax purposes. It would end up as convoluted as the current system.

  A national sales tax also would not work because it would be a simple matter for the very rich to shift most purchases from the U.S. to another country. However, it would be a much better system than the current one.

  The vast majority of the very wealthy did not get there through hard work, they got there by already having money.

  I keep hearing the word 'fair' bandied about, but fair is for games with referees. Life is _never_ fair, and no one should expect it to be. 

  I believe the present problems have come about in large part because a great many people are much more concerned with their own personal wealth than they are the good of the community, society, country, or world. Personal responsibility is a dying concept.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> So then, you're agreeing with me that anyone who makes a lot of money and pays no income tax is a freeloader?


No I agree anyone that doesn't pay taxes is a free loader I don't distinguish by income.  You blast the 40 thousand rich guys you claim don't pay taxes yet you didn't see their tax returns to see how or why and make excuses for the Millions that don't pay because they live hand to mouth.  I'm being honest that we can't sustain 100000000 people getting some type of food assistance and 50% of Americans not paying any taxes.  Your being emotional blaming the 40thousand that don't pay for the problems and ignoring the millions that are the real problems



> No gyrations on my part.  Where have I given anyone a free pass?  I may have missed it, and if you can quote me giving anyone a free pass, I'd appreciate it.  The disconnect that you can't see here is that you rail in this thread and others about the millions of people who are, literally, living hand to mouth, and you say I'm "blasting" rich guys.  It's genuinely amusing to me that you are unwilling to acknowledge that it's freeloading at the top. [\quote]
> 
> Its amusing to me that you can't even be honest about the problems you keep making excuse after excuse after excuse
> 
> ...


----------



## Jaeimseu (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I already told you I'm for a national sales tax so nobody gets away without paying.  The gyrations you go through to blast 40000 rich guys and give passes to Millions of poor for doing the same thing is wild



Is it really the same thing? Poor people who either don't have enough income to pay taxes/be taxed and rich people who choose not to pay or can afford to hire someone else to find ways to not pay seem very different to me. 

Anyway, employed people typically have their taxes taken out before they get any money, just like you.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


----------



## Jaeimseu (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So how does the Govt level the playing field?



The government can provide some help by giving financial assistance to those in need, by providing opportunities for people to receive training and/or education that might enable someone to improve their position and be better able to improve the position of future generations in their family.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> Just a few thoughts to throw in the mix, my opinions only  ...
> 
> While I agree completely that the current tax system is seriously broken, I don't believe a flat tax would work because it would be very difficult to determine exactly what should be considered income for tax purposes. It would end up as convoluted as the current system.
> 
> ...



So what's your solution?  And the rich can't buy from other countries if you place an import tax


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

Jaeimseu said:


> The government can provide some help by giving financial assistance to those in need, by providing opportunities for people to receive training and/or education that might enable someone to improve their position and be better able to improve the position of future generations in their family.
> 
> Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


So your solution is take from one group of people and give to another.


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No I agree anyone that doesn't pay taxes is a free loader I don't distinguish by income.


Great!  That's it.  Not so hard.  Was it?  





> You blast the 40 thousand rich guys you claim don't pay taxes


This is what makes me smile.   I'm blasting the 40 thousand rich guy I'm CLAIMING don't pay taxes?  They AREN'T, and I've shown you the data, and yet you can't bring yourself to acknowledge it as fact.  It's not my opinion that there are thousands of people who make a lot more money than you or me and pay a smaller percentage than either of us.  It's not my opinion that many of these people have a nominal tax rate of zero%.  It's fact.  I'm not alleging it.  It's documented, and I even pointed you to the chart on the IRS.gov website.  One of us is being emotional, and sarcastic, and defensive.  And I'll give you a hint, ballen.  It's you.  

Ultimately, if you'd simply acknowledged my first response to you, we'd be done.  I said that you and I both agree that everyone should pay their "fair share."  We might disagree on what "fair share" means, but we're both many steps to the right of socialism.  Truthfully, we're closer than I thought on what is fair.  The only chuckle I continue to get is your reluctance to say, "There are people at the top who are ALSO mooching and dragging us down."  Not all of them.  Certainly, our country benefits from the philanthropy of the extremely wealthy. And certainly, there are many (as can also be seen on the chart I shared), who contribute 20% or more in income tax.  But, man, there are some greedy bloodsuckers at the top.  And unless you are completely denying the actual, documented, verifiable, indisputably unequal distribution of wealth in our country, you will agree that the tax revenue lost at the top by fewer people is as significant a drain on our country as the tax revenue lost at the bottom.  Granted, I am a product of the Seattle Public School Systems, so your dig at my education or intellect is well noted.  

Did you even open the spreadsheet?  I bet not.  Seeing in black and white something that seems to be so at odds with yours and Don's world view would be shocking, I bet.


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2013)

Jaeimseu said:


> Anyway, employed people typically have their taxes taken out before they get any money, just like you.
> 
> Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


I'm not sure I understand this statement, so if I'm misunderstanding, my apologies.  The taxes taken out of a paycheck for FITW is an estimate based upon your expected tax obligation.  If my adjusted gross income is $100,000 this year and I have had $13,000 taken out of my paychecks as FITW, my withholding is 13%.  If I get all $13,000 back as a refund, my effective tax rate is 0%.


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So your solution is take from one group of people and give to another.


Here's a serious question for you, ballen.  You seem to think that if a poor person benefits in some way from the success of a rich person, that this is wrong.  Taking from one group of people and giving to another.  Right?  Here's the question: Do you believe that people who are wealthy become so on their own without taking anything from the middle class and poor?  In other words, do you believe that the taking only goes one way?

This is a genuine question and will help me understand your perspective.  I think that if you do believe that it goes only one way, it will explain a lot of your posts.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> Here's a serious question for you, ballen.  You seem to think that if a poor person benefits in some way from the success of a rich person, that this is wrong.  Taking from one group of people and giving to another.  Right?  Here's the question: Do you believe that people who are wealthy become so on their own without taking anything from the middle class and poor?  In other words, do you believe that the taking only goes one way?
> 
> This is a genuine question and will help me understand your perspective.  I think that if you do believe that it goes only one way, it will explain a lot of your posts.



Depends on how the person got wealthy.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> Great!  That's it.  Not so hard.  Was it?


Too bad you cant do the same


> This is what makes me smile.   I'm blasting the 40 thousand rich guy I'm CLAIMING don't pay taxes?  They AREN'T, and I've shown you the data, and yet you can't bring yourself to acknowledge it as fact.  It's not my opinion that there are thousands of people who make a lot more money than you or me and pay a smaller percentage than either of us.  It's not my opinion that many of these people have a nominal tax rate of zero%.  It's fact.  I'm not alleging it.  It's documented, and I even pointed you to the chart on the IRS.gov website.  One of us is being emotional, and sarcastic, and defensive.  And I'll give you a hint, ballen.  It's you.
> 
> Ultimately, if you'd simply acknowledged my first response to you, we'd be done.  I said that you and I both agree that everyone should pay their "fair share."  We might disagree on what "fair share" means, but we're both many steps to the right of socialism.  Truthfully, we're closer than I thought on what is fair.  The only chuckle I continue to get is your reluctance to say, "There are people at the top who are ALSO mooching and dragging us down."  Not all of them.  Certainly, our country benefits from the philanthropy of the extremely wealthy. And certainly, there are many (as can also be seen on the chart I shared), who contribute 20% or more in income tax.  But, man, there are some greedy bloodsuckers at the top.  And unless you are completely denying the actual, documented, verifiable, indisputably unequal distribution of wealth in our country, you will agree that the tax revenue lost at the top by fewer people is as significant a drain on our country as the tax revenue lost at the bottom.  Granted, I am a product of the Seattle Public School Systems, so your dig at my education or intellect is well noted.
> 
> Did you even open the spreadsheet?  I bet not.  Seeing in black and white something that seems to be so at odds with yours and Don's world view would be shocking, I bet.



I opened the spread sheet. I also was able to change the numbers and resave it, I can make it say anything I want.  The Spread sheet didnt tell me why these people didnt pay taxes if the chart is legit.  It didnt show me what deductions they had, what losses they showed.  If they cheated or violated the law they need to be charged and sent to jail like wesley snipes.  
You claim I'm emotional and sarcastic but you the one tossing around insults and snarcky comments not me.  Your hung up on 40k people (who I already said multiple times should be paying taxes) who are a drop in the bucket compared to the Millions you refuse to acknowledge as freeloaders.  

And again your math is wrong.  MIllions of people not only pay in zero they also receive Billions of others tax dollars.  So they are in effect double dipping for lack of a better term they dont put in and they take out large amounts.  The top few that you call greedy bloodsuckers (odd term for people that just want to keep what was theirs in the first place.  I didnt know keeping your own money was greedy) May not pay in 20+% but they also dont take out anything, they pay for their own food, cell phones, rent, medical bills, day care, ect.  So they are only screwing us once.  So you cant just compare tax dollars owed you must also add tax dollars taken for the total and then you will see where your math is wrong.


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Too bad you cant do the same
> 
> 
> I opened the spread sheet. I also was able to change the numbers and resave it, I can make it say anything I want.  The Spread sheet didnt tell me why these people didnt pay taxes if the chart is legit.  It didnt show me what deductions they had, what losses they showed.  If they cheated or violated the law they need to be charged and sent to jail like wesley snipes.
> ...


First, if I'm being snarky, I apologize.  I'm actually really trying to be patient with you and NOT be snarky.  So, if it's coming across as snarky, my bad.  

Earlier you asked if people receiving benefits makes me angry.  It doesn't.  Not at the top or at the bottom.  I think there is no difference between a person in the bottom 20% of earners taking advantage of available assistance as at the top 20%.  I also think it's important to consider the difference between income for subsistence and disposable income.  While I'm sure that people who earn in the top 20% spend more on food, milk is the same price whether one makes a fortune or not.  So, we do certainly disagree on welfare, and while I can see that you'd like to make this about that I don't know that it would be constructive or helpful to the conversation.  But, can we at least agree that, if your income is $12,000 per year, you certainly have less disposable income than a person who earns over $100,000?  

As for the 40,000 people or so, if their income were taxed at 10% as opposed to 0%, we're talking about billions of dollars.  Sure, I'm a product of Garfield HS, but it doesn't take a math professor (no offense, Arni ) to do the quick math.  44 people earned *over *$10,000,000 in 2011 (AGI) and paid 0% income tax.  If they paid 10%, that would be at least $44,000,000 income tax revenue.  That's just one bracket.  Overall, we're talking billions of dollars.  Can we agree that this is a significant amount?  

Finally, you say we can't just compare tax dollars owed, but must also add tax dollars taken.  This gets back to my question to you, which I'd still like to hear more about.  Do you think that people who make six or more figures each year do so without benefiting from American tax dollars?  You said, depends upon how they make their money, and that might be true.  I'm interested to hear more.  Your entire position is grounded in the idea that people who are poor benefit, while people who are not poor don't benefit from tax dollars.  This is interesting to me, but in order for your position to work, you need to establish that the poor don't contribute, while the rich don't benefit.  

Finally, greedy bloodsuckers... I was trying to come up with an equivalent term to freeloader.  It was, in my head, a tongue and cheek term from Zorro, The Gay Blade which I just watched with my teenagers (quick aside, it is STILL very funny.) In it, George Hamilton is talking to the love interest, Ms. Charlotte Taylor Wilson: 

*Charlotte Taylor Wilson: [to the crowd] **Let your voices be heard! Oppose the greedy bloodsuckers!
**Charlotte Taylor Wilson*: Thank you. I'm Charlotte Taylor Wilson. I'm with the People's Independence Committee.

*Don Diego*: Don Diego Vega. I'm with the greedy bloodsuckers.


----------



## K-man (Oct 23, 2013)

To be honest. To an outsider, reading the sentiment expressed in this thread is really, really scary. 
:asian:


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2013)

K-man said:


> To be honest. To an outsider, reading the sentiment expressed in this thread is really, really scary.
> :asian:


Hey, can you elaborate?  Living in America, it's difficult to get a sincere sense of how it looks from the outside.


----------



## K-man (Oct 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> Hey, can you elaborate?  Living in America, it's difficult to get a sincere sense of how it looks from the outside.


Running the risk of incurring the wrath of *Ballen*, I think that the increasing gap between rich and poor and the increasing number of poor as the wealth is transferred to the rich will eventually cause a total social breakdown. The fact that people in your society cannot see the need to support those with very little, even though a small number may be rorting the system, goes against every tenet of civilised society.  To compound that problem by blaming the poor because they haven't the means to pay tax absolutely blows my mind. Then at the other end of the scale to defend the people who have sent the jobs off shore and caused the problem in the first place all the time contributing as little as possible to the society in which they live ... amazing! 
:asian:


----------



## pgsmith (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So what's your solution? And the rich can't buy from other countries if you place an import tax



Therein lies the problem. I have no solutions, only complaints. Not that any solution that I could come up with would make any difference. I don't have the proper amount of money or influence to make our legislators pay any attention to me what so ever. 

The system is broken, and I've no idea how to fix it. The good part is that it should hold together long enough to ensure that I'm gone before it all falls to pieces. The bad part is that I feel sorry for the future generation that has to end up dealing with the fall out.


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2013)

K-man said:


> Running the risk of incurring the wrath of *Ballen*, I think that the increasing gap between rich and poor and the increasing number of poor as the wealth is transferred to the rich will eventually cause a total social breakdown. The fact that people in your society cannot see the need to support those with very little, even though a small number may be rorting the system, goes against every tenet of civilised society.  To compound that problem by blaming the poor because they haven't the means to pay tax absolutely blows my mind. Then at the other end of the scale to defend the people who have sent the jobs off shore and caused the problem in the first place all the time contributing as little as possible to the society in which they live ... amazing!
> :asian:


All true, but remember that ballen represents a minority perspective.  While there are a significant number of people who agree with ballen, it's not even half of the country.  The issues are grounded in political rhetoric, but some of the questions I've posed to ballen are a given for most Americans.  

For example, most Americans have no problems at all with the idea that we should provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. 

Most Americans, even the staunchest conservatives, will also freely agree that there are people below a certain level (whether that's the poverty line or somewhere slightly above it) where exemptions are both necessary and appropriate.  

So, while it's easy to despair, and at times I really wonder, don't let the extremist positions sometimes promoted on this forum lead you to believe that they represent more than a fraction of the population.   We have extremists on the left who are equally scary, and if it's any comfort, they all typically rail against each other and leave those of us in the middle largely alone.  You'll notice that all of the rhetoric from people like billc references a liberal that exists only on the extreme left or as the boogeymen in stories that Michelle Malkin and her ilk tell their children to frighten them.  Just as Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are the stuff of nightmare for little hippy children on the extreme left.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Oct 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> I'm not sure I understand this statement, so if I'm misunderstanding, my apologies.  The taxes taken out of a paycheck for FITW is an estimate based upon your expected tax obligation.  If my adjusted gross income is $100,000 this year and I have had $13,000 taken out of my paychecks as FITW, my withholding is 13%.  If I get all $13,000 back as a refund, my effective tax rate is 0%.



Yes, of course. If a person gets a complete refund then the effective rate it 0%. My point is that there is a difference between someone who pays 0% because their income is so low and someone who makes lots of money and actively tries to "game" the system. Poor people don't have the dough to hire a team of accountants to get a 0% rate.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


----------



## Jaeimseu (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So your solution is take from one group of people and give to another.



Yes. 

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2013)

Jaeimseu said:


> Yes, of course. If a person gets a complete refund then the effective rate it 0%. My point is that there is a difference between someone who pays 0% because their income is so low and someone who makes lots of money and actively tries to "game" the system. Poor people don't have the dough to hire a team of accountants to get a 0% rate.
> 
> Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


I understand now.  Thanks.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

Jaeimseu said:


> Yes.
> 
> Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk



You first then.  Oh wait you don't even live here


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> All true, but remember that ballen represents a minority perspective.  While there are a significant number of people who agree with ballen, it's not even half of the country.  The issues are grounded in political rhetoric, but some of the questions I've posed to ballen are a given for most Americans.
> 
> For example, most Americans have no problems at all with the idea that we should provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.
> 
> ...



Oh please.  I didn't know wanting the rich and Poor to pay a little into the system, you know like Obama says "put some skin in the game" was extreme. Maybe if everyone paid something we wouldn't be so free with handing out crazy programs like free cell phones.    Ive never once said we shouldn't have safety nets.  How ever cradle to the grave assistance Is just not sustainable.  No matter how sad it is we cant as a nation keep going like this.  There are 100 MIllion people getting some form of Food assistance according to the USDA.  Where is that money coming from?  OH yeah China.  So call me whatever you want but when the money runs out all together what happens to these poor then?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 23, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> Therein lies the problem. I have no solutions, only complaints. Not that any solution that I could come up with would make any difference. I don't have the proper amount of money or influence to make our legislators pay any attention to me what so ever.
> 
> The system is broken, and I've no idea how to fix it. The good part is that it should hold together long enough to ensure that I'm gone before it all falls to pieces. The bad part is that I feel sorry for the future generation that has to end up dealing with the fall out.



I think part of a real solution lies in reforming our monetary system. There are lots of people who have described what needs to be done in a various ways. Ron Paul is the most prominent.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You first then.  Oh wait you don't even live here



I don't live there currently, that's true. I lived there for 31 years and I'm fairly certain that I'll live there again at some point. My current income earned outside of the US is low enough that it's exempt from US tax. If my income should exceed the threshhold for foreign earned income, I'll have to pay US taxes on it. As it stands, I pay taxes where I live and I have no problem with that. 

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

K-man said:


> Running the risk of incurring the wrath of *Ballen*, I think that the increasing gap between rich and poor and the increasing number of poor as the wealth is transferred to the rich will eventually cause a total social breakdown. The fact that people in your society cannot see the need to support those with very little, even though a small number may be rorting the system, goes against every tenet of civilised society.  To compound that problem by blaming the poor because they haven't the means to pay tax absolutely blows my mind. Then at the other end of the scale to defend the people who have sent the jobs off shore and caused the problem in the first place all the time contributing as little as possible to the society in which they live ... amazing!
> :asian:



Rich are rich and poor are poor how is that the Govts job to fix?  NObody has ever said we shouldn't help the needy Hell I donate time and money to several charities.  Ive built houses for habitat for humanity, done shop with a cop programs, I run my church's lunches for learning program to help really poor kids in Honduras get meals so they can stay in school.  Ive gone to Honduras and helped to build schools and wells for water.  So don't lecture me on helping people. I do more then my fair share.  The fact remains we cannot sustain cradle to the grave welfare.  I can take you to communities where I work with 4 Generations of the same family living on Govt housing.  There is a 4 year waiting list to move into these houses.  That's not sustainable.  And the fact remains that every dollar taken from my paycheck and given to the poor is a dollar taken from my family.  So while I def support helping the poor I don't really think the Govt does the best job at it.  It waists more money then it helps.  If spends our money on stupid stuff like a study on Duck Penis, or teaching Chinese hookers not to drink so much.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

Jaeimseu said:


> I don't live there currently, that's true. I lived there for 31 years and I'm fairly certain that I'll live there again at some point. My current income earned outside of the US is low enough that it's exempt from US tax. If my income should exceed the threshhold for foreign earned income, I'll have to pay US taxes on it. As it stands, I pay taxes where I live and I have no problem with that.
> 
> Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


So you have "no skin in the game" so its easy to say take my kids money and give it to others


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

K-man said:


> To be honest. To an outsider, reading the sentiment expressed in this thread is really, really scary.
> :asian:



To be honest as an insider  When it comes to money removed from MY paycheck your opinion is not my 1st concern


----------



## Jaeimseu (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So you have "no skin in the game" so its easy to say take my kids money and give it to others



I had "skin in the game" for most of my adult life and will again.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

Jaeimseu said:


> I had "skin in the game" for most of my adult life and will again.
> 
> Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk



Your right I apologies Ive been up for 34 hours and its been a rough day.  I may have been a little strong.  Im just tired of being told I hate the poor because I want responsible spending of my tax dollars, and want everyone to give something even if its just a little so when they see its real money coming from there pay they might think twice about voting for the next guy that give out free gifts like Obamaphones


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Oh please.  I didn't know wanting the rich and Poor to pay a little into the system, you know like Obama says "put some skin in the game" was extreme. Maybe if everyone paid something we wouldn't be so free with handing out crazy programs like free cell phones.    Ive never once said we shouldn't have safety nets.  How ever cradle to the grave assistance Is just not sustainable.  No matter how sad it is we cant as a nation keep going like this.  There are 100 MIllion people getting some form of Food assistance according to the USDA.  Where is that money coming from?  OH yeah China.  So call me whatever you want but when the money runs out all together what happens to these poor then?


Jesus Christ, ballen.  Unclench.  If anyone, including me, has mistakenly believed that you are opposed to safety nets, it shouldn't be any kind of surprise to you.  You argue so vehemently against any welfare programs and in this thread, you've taken a pretty severe position as well.  If you don't want to be viewed as an extremist, then do a better job of articulating your position.  Don't blame me or anyone else.


----------



## granfire (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> [....] free gifts like Obamaphones




It would probably help if you would not repeat nonsense like that. These free phones have been around for much longer than the person they are 'named' after. 
Not to mention they are not paid for by the government.

But posts like yours and Don's certainly put a different light on the 'war on poverty'

I think almost all of us here on the forum are in the same boat: We are doing alright, but are only one good disaster away from the poor house.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

granfire said:


> It would probably help if you would not repeat nonsense like that. These free phones have been around for much longer than the person they are 'named' after.
> Not to mention they are not paid for by the government.


Your right they are paid for by you and I.  The Govt forces Cell Phone providers to pay for these phones The cell phone provider then passes the cost on to you and I.  So Yes its a Govt program paid for by a tax on the Cell phone provider.  Also true they were not started by Obama.  BUT I have never ever seen people set up tents in the projects to give them away until Obama took office.  I watched them give a homeless man one because he helped the lady set the tent up.  These stands cause near riots in the govt housing projects where I work so we have to babysit them.  I shocked at the level of greed shown by these "poor" people complaining that there free phone isn't an Iphone and demanding a smart phone not wanting a cheap flip phone.



> But posts like yours and Don's certainly put a different light on the 'war on poverty'
> 
> I think almost all of us here on the forum are in the same boat: We are doing alright, but are only one good disaster away from the poor house.


And our poor are nothing compared to the poor in the rest of the world so I think we are winning with over kill on our war.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> Jesus Christ, ballen.  Unclench.  If anyone, including me, has mistakenly believed that you are opposed to safety nets, it shouldn't be any kind of surprise to you.  You argue so vehemently against any welfare programs and in this thread, you've taken a pretty severe position as well.  If you don't want to be viewed as an extremist, then do a better job of articulating your position.  Don't blame me or anyone else.


Leave Jesus out of it and Calm yourself down nancy


----------



## K-man (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Leave Jesus out of it and Calm yourself down nancy


It would extremely interesting if Jesus was around to read these posts. Wonder what he would make of the sentiment.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 23, 2013)

K-man said:


> It would extremely interesting if Jesus was around to read these posts. Wonder what he would make of the sentiment.



Charity and loving your neighbor at gun point isn't charity or love.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Charity and loving your neighbor at gun point isn't charity or love.



A bit off topic, but what's your opinion on tithing? 

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Rich are rich and poor are poor how is that the Govts job to fix?  NObody has ever said we shouldn't help the needy Hell I donate time and money to several charities.  Ive built houses for habitat for humanity, done shop with a cop programs, I run my church's lunches for learning program to help really poor kids in Honduras get meals so they can stay in school.  Ive gone to Honduras and helped to build schools and wells for water.  So don't lecture me on helping people. I do more then my fair share.  The fact remains we cannot sustain cradle to the grave welfare.  I can take you to communities where I work with 4 Generations of the same family living on Govt housing.  There is a 4 year waiting list to move into these houses.  That's not sustainable.  And the fact remains that every dollar taken from my paycheck and given to the poor is a dollar taken from my family.  So while I def support helping the poor I don't really think the Govt does the best job at it.  It waists more money then it helps.  If spends our money on stupid stuff like a study on Duck Penis, or teaching Chinese hookers not to drink so much.


Actually I think research into duck penis is rather cool and it really is no different to the study of reproduction in any other species. So let's see where we can cut some expenditure.

Let's start at the Universities. Much of the research there is pretty useless. I mean we all have it pretty good at the moment and if the US universities don't get into research they can always catch up from the overseas universities that will obviously attract the disaffected from the US. Even medical research is unwarranted because that sort of research actually could save more poor people than rich people (simple arithmetic) and actually make the problem worse. Cost saving here based on 2009 figures, $33B.

Now how about some unnecessary military equipment. Holy Moly, that's 40% of global arms spending.  There's at least $50B to be saved here and that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's probably another $600B of saving if you cut the armed forces, let alone the $3,700B wasted in the Middle East.

Still on the military, there are lots of guys incapacitated from their military service and a few of them will be ripping off the system. So why not same some dollars and stop those payments. Those people could just join with the rest of the poor. Savings here .. $55B.

Healthcare is a big ticket item. We don't want to be wasting money on healthcare. Everyone should have to pay there own way. And the big companies shouldn't have to pay for their employees because that reduces profits. Saving ... $2,400B.

Now let's look at nursing homes. There goes another $400B. People can sell their homes and use that money until it's gone then out on the street. Make them earn enough to pay for care. It's not fair that other workers should contribute. 

Look at all those kids running around eating their heads off. They should be made to work to contribute to the family finances like they did in England a couple of hundred years ago. That would take a lot of the poor families back across the poverty line.

And infrastructure! A lot of people don't drive so why should they pay to maintain streets and roads? I know that there is a charge on fuel to cover that but you could use that money to pay the politicians and others and save $225B a year.

I reckon there's more than enough money to wipe out the debt with these savings. Mate, I never thought that I would be saying this but *Ballen*&#8203;, you are absolutely right. Problem solved.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Charity and loving your neighbor at gun point isn't charity or love.



There is a principle buried here that would be worth examining.  Anything that has to be taken at gun point for something else is theft.  Think about that.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 23, 2013)

This has been interesting, but some of you have no perspective at all on this. I'll try to break it down again, but just this one last time, I hope.

I started a new job in January-I have to work a "job," almost as a condition of my trust. I could do other things, but, for me, a "job" works best right now. I like my job. It'll pay me nearly $130,000 this year. No small salary, but hardly CEO or even mid-level exec. pay in the company I'm in. Out of that salary, I'll pay something close to 40% in income taxes. That's $52,000-and some, like billc, would say, "Isn't that enough?" Of course, that's not all I'll pay.

Years and years ago, now, my accountant, Sy Levy, now long years dead, alas, told me I should invest in a few companies, so I did. It was right after the stock market crash of 1987-my father and grandfather had died earlier in the year, and my uncle, who was only 8 years older than me, was gonna be dead in a month, and I was looking for distractions beyond work at the nuke plant, martial arts and travel, so I was investing in real estate and the market. Sy said I should buy some Walmart stock, so I did.

I bought a lot. It was undervalued because of the crash, and I bought some-I bought a lot, actually.(Look it up: 26 years ago *today* Walmart opened at about $22 a share, and closed at about $3.50. It was a Friday, and, come Monday-what the Russian fellow in that Direct TV commercial say? You know, the one with the miniature giraffe? _I jump in it!_ :lfao: )

Last year, dividends on my Walmart stock paid a lot. Like, a little bit more than I'll make this year. This year, my Walmart dividends will pay about the same. Of course, those dividends don't get taxed at nearly the same rate as my salary-or *yours*, _whoever_ you are-so I'll clear over $100000 from Walmart. Money I've done nothing to earn. Money that doesn't represent my work. Money that won't "trickle down" to the poor in any way (and, trust me, I know about trickle down-I run a vineyard, and support lots of people at the poverty level-it has nothing to do with my Walmart stock, though.)

Money, in essence, that is mine, and mine alone, and will remain mine for all time.

There was a lot of fuss during the last election about Mitt Romney having waaaayyyy more money in an IRA than anyone knew to be possible. Of course, it's possible. Would you like to know how?

There's a class of IRA that allows depositors to place stocks in it, and set the value of those stocks themselves. It's that simple, and a little complicated. For instance-my father in law, a Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow- (I'm just a physicist; Ivars is an 83 year old retiree who gets paid to come into work and do whatever he wants) helped invent a process that impregnates textiles with chemicals, among other things. Those Dockers that shed spills? Same kinda thing, but a different process. He and some other people got a license to their own patent, and had a start-up  company to develop the process for commercial applications. I've got- I dunno, really-something like 600000 shares in their company.

All worth less than 0.1 cents each. That's not "one cent," that's less than 1/10th of a cent. I put them in an IRA, at that value. Should the company get a big government contract, or some other success, I'll have 600000+ shares of tax-free stock in an IRA. 

Of course, that might never happen-and I won't starve if it doesn't. If it does, though, well, you know what they say:

The rich get richer.

Of course, as far as the "rich" go, I'm really very small potatoes. Imagine for a minute, though, that I'm, I dunno....._Walmart._

That's right. The same rules apply to almost all of Walmart's income. And corporations are "persons." Persons who don't pay any income taxes. Time was, when I was a lad, that the "tax base" of a community was a direct effect of the corporate entities doing business there. Now, corporations are permitted to evade payment just as all "persons" are. Legally, of course.

And you really think that if you just work hard you'll get ahead? The rules are rigged against you. Hell, the rules are just barely not rigged against me!


----------



## Tames D (Oct 23, 2013)

K-man said:


> It would extremely interesting if Jesus was around to read these posts. Wonder what he would make of the sentiment.



I hear that he is around here. Everywhere. So, apparently it doesen't bother him.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 23, 2013)

elder999 said:


> And you really think that if you just work hard you'll get ahead? The *rules* are rigged against you. Hell, the *rules* are just barely not rigged against me!



I could be wrong in sensing there is much more written between the lines here, so I'll just ask a question.  What rules are you referring to?


----------



## K-man (Oct 23, 2013)

Tames D said:


> I hear that he is around here. Everywhere. So, apparently it doesen't bother him.


I think our friend from the TMA/MMA thread would want to put his hand in Jesus' side. 
:asian:


----------



## granfire (Oct 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Your right they are paid for by you and I.  The Govt forces Cell Phone providers to pay for these phones The cell phone provider then passes the cost on to you and I.  So Yes its a Govt program paid for by a tax on the Cell phone provider.  Also true they were not started by Obama.  BUT I have never ever seen people set up tents in the projects to give them away until Obama took office.  I watched them give a homeless man one because he helped the lady set the tent up.  These stands cause near riots in the govt housing projects where I work so we have to babysit them.  I shocked at the level of greed shown by these "poor" people complaining that there free phone isn't an Iphone and demanding a smart phone not wanting a cheap flip phone.
> 
> 
> And our poor are nothing compared to the poor in the rest of the world so I think we are winning with over kill on our war.



Yeah, the 'eat up, there are children starving in India' bit.
Our poor is different than in other places of the world: we can't barter for life's necessities or bring a chicken to pay the doctor. 

But you keep missing the point:
We are all just one major catastrophy away from becoming this poor!


----------



## granfire (Oct 24, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I could be wrong in sensing there is much more written between the lines here, so I'll just ask a question.  What rules are you referring to?



the rules of making/keeping money


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 24, 2013)

Jaeimseu said:


> A bit off topic, but what's your opinion on tithing?
> 
> Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk


Its not done at gun point.  If you don't give all 10% nobody's going to throw you in jail.  You have free will to give or not to give


----------



## granfire (Oct 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its not done at gun point.  If you don't give all 10% nobody's going to throw you in jail.  You have free will to give or not to give



They just threaten you with eternal damnation (and possible exposing your deepest secrets)


----------



## elder999 (Oct 24, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I could be wrong in sensing there is much more written between the lines here, so I'll just ask a question.  What rules are you referring to?



Of course there's much more. It's as Granfire said: rules around making and keeping money. Rules that permit the conceit that is corporate personhood. Our tax structure. The false distinction that allows income from investments to be taxed at a lower rate than income from salary....._really_? I deserve to keep more money from my property than you do from your sweat?

But the unwritten rules that allow most Americans to skew the picture of wealth distribution in the U.S., or the ones that let people think they could be the next Richard Branson (a good story, his!)-that if they just work hard they can get "ahead." 

Or that there's really anything to get ahead of in the first place-that you need to be rich (though maybe, by now, you do) or that if you have a lot of money, it will solve your problems. "Richest" person I've ever known lived in h_ogan _without running water or electricity, herding sheep. My friend's grandmother was 86 years old, and the way she saw it, she had everything she needed, and always had.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 24, 2013)

granfire said:


> Yeah, the 'eat up, there are children starving in India' bit.
> Our poor is different than in other places of the world: we can't barter for life's necessities or bring a chicken to pay the doctor.



Really so which poor person in the US can't walk into a hospital and not get treated?  They don't even need a chicken.  And you can still barter nothing stops you.  I know guys that barter services for defense lawyers all the time.


> But you keep missing the point:
> We are all just one major catastrophy away from becoming this poor!


Not if you plan right prepare and have a strong family support system.


----------



## Steve (Oct 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Really so which poor person in the US can't walk into a hospital and not get treated?  They don't even need a chicken.  And you can still barter nothing stops you.  I know guys that barter services for defense lawyers all the time.


Treated for what?  If you are a poor person with a cut, bruise, active labor, or some acute or life threatening illness or injury, you will get treated in an ER.

We have some people who work in ERs on the board, and I'd love to hear from their practical experience.  My understanding is that a poor person with high cholesterol who needs a lipid screening would not be treated.  A poor person with cancer will not be treated unless the cancer has progressed to the point that the tumor is blocking something and creating a situation where the person's life is in immediate danger.  Any preventative care will not be provided, even in a situation where the person's family has a history of heart disease or cancer.  Routine mammograms, lipid screenings, or any kind of preventative diagnosis.

And that's just for physical maladies.  Mental health treatment in an ER is, if I understand correctly, pretty much limited to severe psychotic breaks.  If you suffer from chronic depression, bi-polar disorder, or if your child has autism, you can't just get treatment or medical help in the ER.   You can't go to the ER and ask for medical advice on an issue that is not an emergency.  

In other threads, I've said that we have TERRIFIC emergency care in our country.  If I am in an automobile accident, I am confident I will receive terrific care.  But we have pretty bad health care, and statistics bear this out.

And while you can't wring blood from a turnip, for people who are "working poor," the trips to the ER are not simply written off and the hospitals employ very aggressive collections strategies that can typically only be stopped with a bankruptcy proceeding.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 24, 2013)

Steve said:


> Treated for what?  If you are a poor person with a cut, bruise, active labor, or some acute or life threatening illness or injury, you will get treated in an ER.
> 
> We have some people who work in ERs on the board, and I'd love to hear from their practical experience.  My understanding is that a poor person with high cholesterol who needs a lipid screening would not be treated.  A poor person with cancer will not be treated unless the cancer has progressed to the point that the tumor is blocking something and creating a situation where the person's life is in immediate danger.  Any preventative care will not be provided, even in a situation where the person's family has a history of heart disease or cancer.  Routine mammograms, lipid screenings, or any kind of preventative diagnosis.
> 
> ...



Your argument is no longer valid remember we have obamacare to save us.  We all must go buy insurance even if you can't afford it


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 24, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Of course there's much more. It's as Granfire said: rules around making and keeping money. Rules that permit the conceit that is corporate personhood. Our tax structure. The false distinction that allows income from investments to be taxed at a lower rate than income from salary....._really_? I deserve to keep more money from my property than you do from your sweat?
> 
> But the unwritten rules that allow most Americans to skew the picture of wealth distribution in the U.S., or the ones that let people think they could be the next Richard Branson (a good story, his!)-that if they just work hard they can get "ahead."
> 
> Or that there's really anything to get ahead of in the first place-that you need to be rich (though maybe, by now, you do) or that if you have a lot of money, it will solve your problems. "Richest" person I've ever known lived in h_ogan _without running water or electricity, herding sheep. My friend's grandmother was 86 years old, and the way she saw it, she had everything she needed, and always had.



Yes nobody every gets ahead with hard work.  You may never be the next Richard Brandon but with hard work you can be comfortable in life.  Not everyone will or can be rich and we will always have poor and dort poor but you can ALWAYS improve upon your situation


----------



## Steve (Oct 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Your argument is no longer valid remember we have obamacare to save us.  We all must go buy insurance even if you can't afford it


You asked a question.  I answered it.  You didn't like my answer and replied with sarcasm and snarkiness.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 24, 2013)

granfire said:


> They just threaten you with eternal damnation (and possible exposing your deepest secrets)



But if you don't believe it doesn't effect you.  Unlike taxes you have no choice


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 24, 2013)

Steve said:


> You asked a question.  I answered it.  You didn't like my answer and replied with sarcasm and snarkiness.



No I didn't my reply was true is it not?


----------



## Steve (Oct 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No I didn't my reply was true is it not?


<sigh> I made no argument, ballen.  I answered a question. So, no.  Your reply wasn't true.  It was sarcastic and snarky.  You asked a question, "so which poor person in the US can't walk into a hospital and not get treated?"

I provided several examples of people who would not receive treatment.  If you were to walk into an ER with no means to pay, you would not receive treatment for chronic illnesses, such as cancer.  Try getting chemo or radiation therapy in an ER without insurance.  Try getting treatment for mental illness short of a violent, dangerous psychotic episode without insurance.  

The above are factual.  You cannot get chemo at the ER.  This is a fact.  It is not an argument, nor is it an opinion.  It is a factual answer to a question you asked, and your response was the typical, sarcastic jab that you resort to when your rhetoric fails.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 24, 2013)

Steve said:


> <sigh> I made no argument, ballen.  I answered a question. So, no.  Your reply wasn't true.  It was sarcastic and snarky.  You asked a question, "so which poor person in the US can't walk into a hospital and not get treated?"
> 
> I provided several examples of people who would not receive treatment.  If you were to walk into an ER with no means to pay, you would not receive treatment for chronic illnesses, such as cancer.  Try getting chemo or radiation therapy in an ER without insurance.  Try getting treatment for mental illness short of a violent, dangerous psychotic episode without insurance.
> 
> The above are factual.  You cannot get chemo at the ER.  This is a fact.  It is not an argument, nor is it an opinion.  It is a factual answer to a question you asked, and your response was the typical, sarcastic jab that you resort to when your rhetoric fails.



Sigh.......still does not apply anymore when everyone is required by law to buy health insurance even the poor who by the way most already had insurance through the state


By the way you may not get chemo in the ER but thy can certainly move you to a bed in oncology and get it once they figure out what you need.


Oh and I take people for psyc.  Treatment damn near everyday that have nothing.  They are treated so you wrong again


----------



## Steve (Oct 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Sigh.......still does not apply anymore when everyone is required by law to buy health insurance even the poor who by the way most already had insurance through the state
> 
> 
> By the way you may not get chemo in the ER but thy can certainly move you to a bed in oncology and get it once they figure out what you need.


I believe you are mistaken.  Is there anyone here who works in an ER who can shed some light on this?  I'm reasonable sure that you will not be admitted to the hospital in this case.





> Oh and I take people for psyc.  Treatment damn near everyday that have nothing.  They are treated so you wrong again


You take them in for treatment or for an evaluation?


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 24, 2013)

Steve said:


> I believe you are mistaken.  Is there anyone here who works in an ER who can shed some light on this?  I'm reasonable sure that you will not be admitted to the hospital in this case.


What are you talking about?  Nobody really admitted for routine cancer treatments.  Everyone has health insurance now or they will once these web sites get fixed so everyone can get the proper treatment.  Remember Obamacare requires us ALL to have insurance well unless you donate enough to dem campaigns then you get an exemption.  


> You take them in for treatment or for an evaluation?


same difference they are given a treatnent progam to follow upon release.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes nobody every gets ahead with hard work.



Some people do-Richard Branson pretty much did. 

Not everyone *can* or *will*, or else they would, pretty much, ya know?


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 24, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Some people do-Richard Branson pretty much did.
> 
> Not everyone *can* or *will*, or else they would, pretty much, ya know?



Everyone doesn't need to be rich.  What's wrong with just being normal?  Everyone can become semis comfortable you just need to try.  We don't need nor could we ever have 300 million rich people here

Everyone CAN get comfortable but not everyone WILL


----------



## Steve (Oct 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What are you talking about?  Nobody really admitted for routine cancer treatments.


Right.  And they won't administer any cancer treatment in the ER, and they won't do it in oncology unless you have a means of payment.  





> Everyone has health insurance now or they will once these web sites get fixed so everyone can get the proper treatment.  Remember Obamacare requires us ALL to have insurance well unless you donate enough to dem campaigns then you get an exemption.


This is a red herring.  It's not relevant to the question you asked and I answered.





> same difference they are given a treatnent progam to follow upon release.


They aren't the same.  Evaluation is not treatment, and treatment is not available in the ER.  They will detain someone for up to 72 hours, but typically, in the ER, they will release the person if the imminent danger is past.  

The specific laws are different in each State, but it's typically pretty similar.  Here's a summary of what happens in Colorado:  http://www.nami.org/MSTemplate.cfm?...Management/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=90487

As I said above, I'd welcome someone who works in an ER to correct me if I'm wrong.  Absent that, you asked a question and I provided what I believe to be a simple, factual answer and several concrete examples to support that answer.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 24, 2013)

Steve said:


> Right.  And they won't administer any cancer treatment in the ER, and they won't do it in oncology unless you have a means of payment.


Wrong again there is treatment for people that can't pay.  I donate money every year to St Jude's Hospital who provide cancer treatment for free.  2ndly the really poor already have state run health insurance.  Here its called priority partners.  So again the poor are not turned away without treatment.


> This is a red herring.  It's not relevant to the question you asked and I answered.


Not a red herring its a cold hard fact and your answer was wrong


> They aren't the same.  Evaluation is not treatment, and treatment is not available in the ER.  They will detain someone for up to 72 hours, but typically, in the ER, they will release the person if the imminent danger is past.
> 
> The specific laws are different in each State, but it's typically pretty similar.  Here's a summary of what happens in Colorado:  http://www.nami.org/MSTemplate.cfm?...Management/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=90487
> 
> As I said above, I'd welcome someone who works in an ER to correct me if I'm wrong.  Absent that, you asked a question and I provided what I believe to be a simple, factual answer and several concrete examples to support that answer.



Actually when I take you to the ER for psyc eval you don't stay in the ER.  I drop you off and you are then moved to the psyc ward for evaluation and treatment.  They also schedule several follow up meetings  for more treatment


----------



## Steve (Oct 24, 2013)

Regarding the psych eval, I'm pretty sure it depends upon the State you're in.  But in most, based upon what I've read, they will evaluate you and then likely release you without treatment if you are not posing an immediate threat to yourself or others.   In some States, this will be in the ER.  In some States, it's in a psych ward.  

You speak about these things in absolutes, like you're an expert, as though because you drop them off you know the entire process for your State and every other.  I'd love to hear from an *actual *expert on the subject.  As I said before, I am almost sure that there were some ER nurses posting to the boards here.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 24, 2013)

Steve said:


> Regarding the psych eval, I'm pretty sure it depends upon the State you're in.  But in most, based upon what I've read, they will evaluate you and then likely release you without treatment if you are not posing an immediate threat to yourself or others.   In some States, this will be in the ER.  In some States, it's in a psych ward.
> 
> You speak about these things in absolutes, like you're an expert, as though because you drop them off you know the entire process for your State and every other.  I'd love to hear from an *actual *expert on the subject.  As I said before, I am almost sure that there were some ER nurses posting to the boards here.


I'm not claiming to be an expert.  You said mentally I'll don't get treatment.  That's just flat wrong.  Now maybe in your state they don't,  maybe in teaxs or Cali they don't.  But some places they do.  So your wrong when you said psych patients don't get treatment.  We have an entire mental health system run by the state that includes counslers medication follow up visits etc.


----------



## Steve (Oct 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not claiming to be an expert.  You said mentally I'll don't get treatment.  That's just flat wrong.  Now maybe in your state they don't,  maybe in teaxs or Cali they don't.  But some places they do.  So your wrong when you said psych patients don't get treatment.  We have an entire mental health system run by the state that includes counslers medication follow up visits etc.


http://dhmh.maryland.gov/yourrights/docs/pbor.pdf

There are the rules in Maryland.  You won't be treated unless you are an immediate danger to yourself or others.  As I said several posts ago, "Mental health treatment in an ER is, if I understand correctly, pretty much limited to severe psychotic breaks."

So, on one hand, I never said that the mentally ill don't get treatment.  I said that you won't get treatment for anything short of a severe psychotic break in the ER.  Or in other words, if you don't present an immediate danger to yourself or others, you will not be treated and will instead be released.  

According to the document above, from the Maryland.gov website, this is true in your neck of the woods, as well. 

Once again, the above is fact.  It's not my opinion.  I'm not arguing a position here.  I'm simply stating fact, which is easily verifiable by looking at source documents.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 24, 2013)

Steve4512 said:
			
		

> http://dhmh.maryland.gov/yourrights/docs/pbor.pdf
> 
> There are the rules in Maryland.  You won't be treated unless you are an immediate danger to yourself or others.  As I said several posts ago, "Mental health treatment in an ER is, if I understand correctly, pretty much limited to severe psychotic breaks."oneCOLOR]




And like I said its not done in the ER by an ER doc.  Its done by a psych doc.  It may physically be in the ER on smaller hospitals but it's by a mental heath professional.  So its not an ER function.  Just an ER room sometimes.  



> So, on one hand, I never said that the mentally ill don't get treatment.  I said that you won't get treatment for anything short of a severe psychotic break in the ER.  Or in other words, if you don't present an immediate danger to yourself or others, you will not be treated and will instead be released.


If your not a danger ti yourself or others I wont even take you there so Im not sure the point.  


> According to the document above, from the Maryland.gov website, this is true in your neck of the woods, as well.
> 
> Once again, the above is fact.  It's not my opinion.  I'm not arguing a position here.  I'm simply stating fact, which is easily verifiable by looking at source documents.



And your facts proved my point mentally I'll are treated whichyou said were not.


But you win I don't know what I'm talking about I only take people to get treatment all the time.  I must have dreamed it.  I must not really be at a hospital and i must not really be walking people into a different area then the ER. I must not need to lock up my gun prior to entering the secure area.  What do I know Your the expert on all things that are Govt assistance programs congrats.  

Fact still remains people are not dying in the streets from being poor.  People all over the country recieve treatment for all kinds of stuff even cancer if they cant pay.


----------



## Steve (Oct 24, 2013)

Your question wasn't, "Are the mentally ill people I take to the ER treated?"  Your question was, "which poor person in the US can't walk into a hospital and not get treated?"  

The problem here is that you don't know what question you actually asked, even though I've tried to remind you several times.  It's no wonder you're confused.  If you are a real cop, and you are bringing someone to the ER for a psych evaluation, then there's a pretty good chance that someone believes that person to be a danger to himself or others.  But, just as you don't interact with every person on welfare, you also don't interact with every person who is mentally ill.  Unfortunately, you seem unable to comprehend that.

There are people who are mentally ill who are not "gravely disabled" or do not represent an immediate danger to anyone, who cannot get "free" mental health treatment.  

Once again, you asked a question.  That's the answer.  I'm sorry I can't say it in a way that you can wrap your head around it.  I don't know how else to say it.  I guess you can have the last word.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 24, 2013)

Steve said:


> Your question wasn't, "Are the mentally ill people I take to the ER treated?"  Your question was, "which poor person in the US can't walk into a hospital and not get treated?"


And the answer is none.  Since the poor are covered by medicaid, and the ones that are not are treated and released.  



> The problem here is that you don't know what question you actually asked, even though I've tried to remind you several times.  It's no wonder you're confused.  If you are a real cop, and you are bringing someone to the ER for a psych evaluation, then there's a pretty good chance that someone believes that person to be a danger to himself or others.  But, just as you don't interact with every person on welfare, you also don't interact with every person who is mentally ill.  Unfortunately, you seem unable to comprehend that.


If Im a real cop huh?  You loose your argument so you question my integrity huh nice.

I never said I interact with every ill person.   I interact with the ones that need immediate care and guess what they receive it regardless of ability to pay


> There are people who are mentally ill who are not "gravely disabled" or do not represent an immediate danger to anyone, who cannot get "free" mental health treatment.


Sure they can we all have insurance now remember Obamacare  


> Once again, you asked a question.  That's the answer.  I'm sorry I can't say it in a way that you can wrap your head around it.  I don't know how else to say it.  I guess you can have the last word.


And thanks for that but some how I doubt it


----------

