Home

Poor and middle class attitudes in America
  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions


View latest: 24h 48h 72h


amother




OP
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 2:01 pm
Why do so many poor Americans oppose taxing the wealthy?
If America's wealthy class cared about helping the poor half as much as the poor people care about protecting them, poverty probably wouldn't exist.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 2:11 pm
This is the first time I am hearing about poor people who are concerned about the wealth of the rich.

Trump offered jobs and tax cuts so he got the working class votes but I don't know if the truly poor managed to vote.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 2:14 pm
Because taxing does not help the poor.

The haves give charity to help the have nots. Giving more money to taxes does not help the have nots. The government has not shown that what they need is money as well as america is not a socialist country. It is dmot the government's job to help the have nots. That what a social fabric is for.

Also when taxes are high, there is less hiring, there is less economic growth. We can't afford to grow when the money is going to taxes and that hurts the have nots the most.

Notably, those who call for higher taxes and are wealthy, like warren dont give much to charity. Those who typically advocate for a social fabric instead of government typically give a lot to charity.

The USA brought in more money this year with the tax cuts. That is because there was economic growth. The tax cuts actually did not help the very wealthy in most states, but affected majority of the middle class.

I dont care how much others pay in taxes, because I dont think rich people owe me or anyone else anything
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 2:33 pm
What Small Bean said.

Plus, the fact that the government is incredibly ineffecient and wasteful when it comes to using money to solve problems.

I don't know the updated figures -- perhaps I can look it up later -- but a number of years ago, it was estimated that simply cutting out all the government "programs" and issuing a check to anyone under a certain income level would result in approximately $23K per person -- not household.

But simply giving poor people money is unpopular with both liberals and conservatives. Liberals don't like the idea because it takes away their moral authority to decide what people need. Conservatives don't like the idea because they're concerned people won't spend wisely. You can't get much more bipartisan that that!

We have no real desire as a society to end poverty; we want to manage it, instead.

To add to that are Milton and Rose Friedman's truisms:

-- When you spend your money on someone else, you are concerned about value and what will be adequate for the recipient.
-- When you spend your money on yourself, you are concerned about getting the best product for the best value.
-- When you spend someone else's money on yourself, you get the best and couldn't care less about value.
-- When you spend someone else's money on someone else, you couldn't care less about either the product or the value.

Government is the ultimate example of people spending other people's money on other people -- which is why private charities get so much more value out of their resources.
Back to top

amother




Denim
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 3:49 pm
Our govt enables poor people.
They give them every kind of subsidy and benefit under the sun to keep them lazy and unemployed.
No incentive to go work.

Look what’s going on in NYC housing development. The entitlement of the people who owe thousands in rent is appalling.

( obviously this refers to healthy people not sick people who can’t work)
Back to top

baby12x




 
 
 
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 4:02 pm
small bean wrote:
Because taxing does not help the poor.

The haves give charity to help the have nots. Giving more money to taxes does not help the have nots. The government has not shown that what they need is money as well as america is not a socialist country. It is dmot the government's job to help the have nots. That what a social fabric is for.

Also when taxes are high, there is less hiring, there is less economic growth. We can't afford to grow when the money is going to taxes and that hurts the have nots the most.

Notably, those who call for higher taxes and are wealthy, like warren dont give much to charity. Those who typically advocate for a social fabric instead of government typically give a lot to charity.

The USA brought in more money this year with the tax cuts. That is because there was economic growth. The tax cuts actually did not help the very wealthy in most states, but affected majority of the middle class.

I dont care how much others pay in taxes, because I dont think rich people owe me or anyone else anything


I'm not getting involved in this discussion but just to point out that statistically the "haves" give a lot less charity than the "have-nots"- proportionality speaking.

For example, jeff Bezos gives less than 1% of his income to charity. That's not even maaser.

And they tend to give money to institutions that benefit themselves not other people. So endowing universities, museums or buildings but not actually helping the poor
Back to top

leah233




 
 
 
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 4:07 pm
I'm far from rich but I still oppose soaking the rich to help the poor for two reasons

(1)I think it is morally wrong. Getting elected by promising to redistribute the wealth is basically a glorified form of theft. In essence it is saying "I'll steal from them for you if you elect me".

(2) The programs lead to an endless cycle of reliance on them. They then have a very destructive impact on the people who are on them and make it very difficult to make an honest lower middle class income if you are not on them.
Back to top

leah233




 
 
 
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 4:09 pm
baby12x wrote:
I'm not getting involved in this discussion but just to point out that statistically the "haves" give a lot less charity than the "have-nots"- proportionality speaking.

For example, jeff Bezos gives less than 1% of his income to charity. That's not even maaser.

And they tend to give money to institutions that benefit themselves not other people. So endowing universities, museums or buildings but not actually helping the poor


This is even more true about the politicians who make millions of dollars and supporters for themselves by preaching about society's obligations to the poor.

Take a look at (e.g) Bernie Sanders tax return. On the ones I've seen he gives next to nothing to charity but spends plenty on "business" meals and entertainment.
Back to top

Rappel




 
 
 
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 4:13 pm
Because taxing the rich doesn't solve poverty. It just means that no one is going to grow their business, so no one is going to hire me.
Back to top

amother




Cobalt
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 4:43 pm
I live in a country that taxes people based on their income. I'm not sure how it works in America (I would assume the same), but we all get the same access to healthcare, education, etc. Of course, wealthier people always have more options. People in my country absolutely believe everyone should be taxed based on their income, even wealthy people and the non-wealthy people.
Back to top

amother




Denim
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 4:58 pm
amother [ Cobalt ] wrote:
I live in a country that taxes people based on their income. I'm not sure how it works in America (I would assume the same), but we all get the same access to healthcare, education, etc. Of course, wealthier people always have more options. People in my country absolutely believe everyone should be taxed based on their income, even wealthy people and the non-wealthy people.


In America only the rich get taxed.
And only the poor get benefits.

And don’t get me started on middle class...
Back to top

Amarante




 
 
 
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 5:24 pm
This isn't about alleviating poverty per se.

This is about funding for things that help everybody as well as poorer people. Investing in schools - investing in infrastructure - funding all kinds of programs that are in need of funds.

People vote against their economic interests because they are diverted by issues having little to do with their well being.

It's ludicrous that anyone would not support taxing 1% or 2% of a billionaires' wealth or that any billionaire is so greedy that they resent paying such a small percentage of their total assets. Living on 98% of their wealth would still be more money than could be reasonably spent in several lifetimes.
Back to top

amother




Fuchsia
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 5:35 pm
Amarante wrote:
This isn't about alleviating poverty per se.

This is about funding for things that help everybody as well as poorer people. Investing in schools - investing in infrastructure - funding all kinds of programs that are in need of funds.

People vote against their economic interests because they are diverted by issues having little to do with their well being.

It's ludicrous that anyone would not support taxing 1% or 2% of a billionaires' wealth or that any billionaire is so greedy that they resent paying such a small percentage of their total assets. Living on 98% of their wealth would still be more money than could be reasonably spent in several lifetimes.


Another classic liberal "I know better than you what is best for you" attitude

People with that attitude can only be trusted to take away money from the rich. Helping the poor is another story.
Back to top

simcha2




 
 
 
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 5:38 pm
amother [ Denim ] wrote:
In America only the rich get taxed.
And only the poor get benefits.

And don’t get me started on middle class...


Actually, the very wealthy pay a lower percentage of their taxes than everyone other than the very poor (below poverty line). In 2018 the effective tax rate for the 400 wealthiest families was 23% compared to 24.2 percent for the bottom 50%of families. They paid proportionally less.

Of course this isn't does taxing the very rich pay for welfare programs. It's how do we pay for the whole economy? Military, education, infrastructure.

Why people support tax cuts for the very wealthy to their own detriment (they have to pay proportionally more) is a mixture of aspirational thinking (when I make it, I don't want to pay so much), lack of education and horrible misrepresentation of facts (it's going to lead to socialism).
Back to top

Mommyg8




 
 
 
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 5:42 pm
simcha2 wrote:
Actually, the very wealthy pay a lower percentage of their taxes than everyone other than the very poor (below poverty line). In 2018 the effective tax rate for the 400 wealthiest families was 23% compared to 24.2 percent for the bottom 50%of families. They paid proportionally less.

Of course this isn't does taxing the very rich pay for welfare programs. It's how do we pay for the whole economy? Military, education, infrastructure.

Why people support tax cuts for the very wealthy to their own detriment (they have to pay proportionally more) is a mixture of aspirational thinking (when I make it, I don't want to pay so much), lack of education and horrible misrepresentation of facts (it's going to lead to socialism).


I can't believe I agree with this, but actually I do.

Most people don't realize how little the very wealthy pay in taxes.
Back to top

amother




Denim
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 6:12 pm
simcha2 wrote:
Actually, the very wealthy pay a lower percentage of their taxes than everyone other than the very poor (below poverty line). In 2018 the effective tax rate for the 400 wealthiest families was 23% compared to 24.2 percent for the bottom 50%of families. They paid proportionally less.

Of course this isn't does taxing the very rich pay for welfare programs. It's how do we pay for the whole economy? Military, education, infrastructure.

Why people support tax cuts for the very wealthy to their own detriment (they have to pay proportionally more) is a mixture of aspirational thinking (when I make it, I don't want to pay so much), lack of education and horrible misrepresentation of facts (it's going to lead to socialism).


That’s true
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
 
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 6:14 pm
simcha2 wrote:
Actually, the very wealthy pay a lower percentage of their taxes than everyone other than the very poor (below poverty line). In 2018 the effective tax rate for the 400 wealthiest families was 23% compared to 24.2 percent for the bottom 50%of families. They paid proportionally less.

Of course this isn't does taxing the very rich pay for welfare programs. It's how do we pay for the whole economy? Military, education, infrastructure.

Why people support tax cuts for the very wealthy to their own detriment (they have to pay proportionally more) is a mixture of aspirational thinking (when I make it, I don't want to pay so much), lack of education and horrible misrepresentation of facts (it's going to lead to socialism).


This number is based on very, very flawed data.
Back to top

amother




OP
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 6:15 pm
Rappel wrote:
Because taxing the rich doesn't solve poverty. It just means that no one is going to grow their business, so no one is going to hire me.

Partially true. There is a point at which that would happen, but we are very far from that.
Back to top

simcha2




 
 
 
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 6:16 pm
sushilover wrote:
This number is based on very, very flawed data.


Source?

ETA - Warren Buffett, who does release his tax returns, pays 15.9% federal tax rate.
Back to top

leah233




 
 
 
 

Post  Mon, Nov 25 2019, 6:42 pm
simcha2 wrote:
Source?

ETA - Warren Buffett, who does release his tax returns, pays 15.9% federal tax rate.


Warren Buffett pays so little taxes for three reasons

(1)he gives a lot to charity (his foundation)which greatly reduces his taxable income

(2)he creates many jobs. There are tax deductions and credits for creating jobs

(3)his income is almost all capital gains which is taxed lower for everyone rich or poor alike (for some lower income individuals capital gains aren't taxable to begin with)

Perhaps (3) is debatable but the poor are certainly better off with(1)&(2) staying in place rather than Buffet paying more income taxes
Back to top
  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 1 of 20 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Can I observe your class while you teach?
by amother
8 Thu, Mar 05 2020, 11:06 pm View last post
Iso cookie decorating class
by bobeli
1 Wed, Feb 26 2020, 11:37 pm View last post
Womens night exercise class 19 Tue, Feb 25 2020, 10:32 am View last post
Paint class- miami
by amother
0 Thu, Feb 20 2020, 7:57 pm View last post
ISO of Craft Second Grader Can Teach Her Class -Adar related 2 Thu, Feb 20 2020, 12:27 pm View last post

Jump to: