OK. Let's put out some numbers as an example. Let's say the government decides an individual requires $800/mth to survive and the current tax rate is 20%. So, every welfare recipient is eligible for $1,000/mth with 20%, or $200, going towards taxes. The net rate is $800/mth. so the government sends a check for $800.
When it comes to pensions it's a different story. The government does not know the total income of people receiving SS so it sends out the full amount and people pay tax according to their total income from all sources. Because the government knows the total income of welfare recipients, which is declared in order to qualify for welfare, it doesn't make sense to send the full amount and then tax it later when they already know the amount of tax due.
"May your reality be as pleasant as mine."
Clinton’s 2.3-million-popular-vote plurality over Trump depends on the votes in a single state: California. Clinton has more than a 4-million-vote plurality over Trump there. In the other 49 states plus the District of Columbia, Trump actually has a 1.7-million-popular-vote plurality over Clinton. So California single-handedly turns a Trump plurality into a Clinton plurality.
Well, that's not exactly true. Someone who earns over a certain amount, can't get the Earned Income Credit, or qualify for any number of other tax breaks available for low income families. Again, YOUR words... "All income should be taxed the same!" You even admitted you didn't misspeak, we heard you correctly.The same idea applies to the 48% who are working. Everyone gets the same minimum deductions.
Well they earned income didn't they? I mean, if they didn't earn anything, okay, I understand... nothing earned, nothing owed.... but YOU SAID.... "All income should be taxed the same!" You said you didn't misspeak, so why are you now trying to run away from your very own principle?Those who don't pay any income tax don't earn over the minimum deduction level. They have nothing to put in the game.
Okay, hold on to your pinhead seat, you may have trouble with this one.... MOST people, would rather have higher wages than government assistance. That's why.If, as you claim, they are benefiting the most why doesn't everyone work for low wages? If low wages and welfare are such good deals why don't we see people quitting their jobs?
Nah... not really. My common sense and logic are just fine, it is YOU who is having a problem with a contradiction in principle here.Again, common sense and logic just glide right past you.
When Bush said he was opposed to "nation building" it was well before 9/11, it was at a time when Democrats like Bill Clinton and John Kerry, were promoting a foreign policy with regard to Iraq, which called for US-backing of opposition forces to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and replace the regime with democratic government.... in other words, our hand-selected democratic leader for Iraq. Bush was opposed to that idea, and so was I, and it was referred to as "nation building" at the time. In spite of mine, and Bush's objections, the Democrat congress passed overwhelmingly, the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Of course, the funding for opposition never materialized, because Saddam killed all the opposition... so we never had the chance to "nation build" like the Democrats wanted to do in Iraq back in 1998.
After 9/11/01, the entire chess board changed. Saddam was a chess piece Bush didn't think needed to remain in play, and he took him out. After Saddam was toppled, what happened next? The Bush Administration, in spite of the public pounding they took in the media, painstakingly set up and followed through with the democratic process of allowing the people of Iraq to elect a government of their choosing, form a constitution of their making, and eventually train a military of their own people to protect the citizens. This is not what Bush was talking about when he used the term, and was opposed to "nation building." While it can be construed as "nation building" it is not what he was referring to. We didn't install our own "puppet government" in Iraq, which is precisely what Democrats advocated back in 1998.
For example, let's say a person earns $20,000. If one is permitted to deduct, say, $12,000 they would owe taxes on $8,000. ($20,000 - $12,000 = $8,000.) If a person is collecting $12,000 then they don't owe any tax.
"May your reality be as pleasant as mine."
For those who want to see ALL the information I provided in the previous response to this Dixie Dunce
Last edited by Taichiliberal; 04-27-2012 at 05:08 PM.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.