4 ms·

Property and sales taxes are not what is fueling the benefit/entitlement programs on the federal level, which is what is truly out of control. That is why peopl

by 13rules 14y ago

Property and sales taxes are not what is fueling the benefit/entitlement programs on the federal level, which is what is truly out of control. That is why people cite the 50% of people that don't pay income taxes so much -- we have half of the country paying nothing into the system and about the same amount of people taking out. It's not sustainable. To say that the government needs to keep handing out entitlements because otherwise companies will run out of customers is such an awful argument - and one that I have heard often. If the government would get out of the way the market would respond like it is supposed to -- and prices would come down. Would some companies go out of business? Possibly. But only the companies that were unsustainable without government propping them up to begin with.

Jtsummers 14y ago
Wow, nice reframing. I didn't say the entitlements (Medicaid, unemployment, and other forms of welfare) permitted them to be customers. If that's what you got from my statement, reread it. The majority of them aren't freeloaders. The majority of them work - they provide benefits to companies by making things or performing other services. The majority of them pay other taxes (including payroll taxes, the part funding SS and Medicaid). They spend money on goods and services, which inherently means they're supporting the economy as a whole. To disregard this 50% as a bunch of freeloading losers does not make sense.
- 13rules 14y ago
  I just said that 50% of Americans don't pay Federal taxes and about the same amount are on the receiving end of benefits / entitlements. I never called them freeloading losers, I simply stated that those kind of economics are not sustainable.
  - Jtsummers 14y ago
    Sorry, you're right. You just said they sit on their collective asses while the minority does the hard work. Payroll taxes are federal taxes. If you're working and not exempt (certain state employees, the Amish and some others), you pay payroll taxes. Since 50% of the population isn't unemployed, that means most of them are still paying payroll taxes, therefore they're paying federal taxes.
    - 13rules 14y ago
      The original premise is that successful people owe something to society because there are roads, bridges, technology advancements like the internet, etc, etc. without which they would not be successful. My point is, what about the people that are doing nothing? They have the same access to the roads, bridges, internet, but they do nothing. Don't they owe some sort of debt to society to go try to work instead of just collecting from others? What I meant is the federal income tax ... which is what funds a majority of this country's expenditures. I work. I pay my taxes. I donate money to non-profit organizations. I'm a good citizen. And I'm sick of being told by a bunch of redistributionist minded people that I owe more back to the collective good of society just because I have been successful and someone else hasn't.
      - Jtsummers 14y ago
        You claim 50% contribute nothing. I offered a rebuttal. You insisted 50% do nothing. I offered a rebuttal. 42% of federal revenue is from income tax. 42% from social security and Medicare taxes. 50% pays no federal income tax due to unemployment or low wages placing them below the poverty line or the use of various deductions. I have not disputed that. You draw a false conclusion that that indicates they contribute nothing. You have expressed a belief based on a feeling rather than fact that 50% of the population is worthless.
        13rules 14y ago
        They are contributing nothing to the federal income tax, which is the major contributor to the benefits and entitlements that are handed out. I don't know why you think that is feeling rather than fact. I didn't say they were worthless, just not contributing. Just because I said earlier "that's how it feels" doesn't mean that I am trying to argue everything from an emotional standpoint ... I'm very well read on the subject - as I'm sure you are ... we just happen to disagree.
        potatolicious 14y ago
        > "I'm very well read on the subject" It certainly doesn't seem this way. You started this whole argument by stating a ridiculous falsehood: that the majority of America "sits on their asses" while the few "do all the work". Furthermore, you state that every resource has been granted to them "yet they do nothing". Jtsummers then explained quite clearly that characterizing the middle class "doing nothing" and "sitting on their asses" is grossly false. You started this thing with an incredibly disingenuous framing and appeal to emotion, going so far as to state an obvious falsehood. Then you, incredulously, claim that you weren't trying to argue things from an emotional perspective. Right, because the claim that most people "sit on their asses" while the few, the honorable (like yourself, presumably) "do all the work" and that these people "do nothing"... that's not an attempt at emotional argument at all! After Jtsummer continues on his journey of reasoning, you now make one more concession and try to gloss it over by insisting that you never meant to claim these people were "worthless". Your emotional framing failed, so now you're ducking behind the excuse that you never meant any value judgment with your claims - because "sitting on their ass" is totally not a value judgment at all! If there's one thing I cannot abide in arguments/debates its disingenuousness. If you try to frame an argument purely emotionally and get caught in it, own it.

by 13rules 14y ago

Jtsummers 14y ago

Wow, nice reframing. I didn't say the entitlements (Medicaid, unemployment, and other forms of welfare) permitted them to be customers. If that's what you got from my statement, reread it. The majority of them aren't freeloaders. The majority of them work - they provide benefits to companies by making things or performing other services. The majority of them pay other taxes (including payroll taxes, the part funding SS and Medicaid). They spend money on goods and services, which inherently means they're supporting the economy as a whole. To disregard this 50% as a bunch of freeloading losers does not make sense.

13rules 14y ago
I just said that 50% of Americans don't pay Federal taxes and about the same amount are on the receiving end of benefits / entitlements. I never called them freeloading losers, I simply stated that those kind of economics are not sustainable.
- Jtsummers 14y ago
  Sorry, you're right. You just said they sit on their collective asses while the minority does the hard work. Payroll taxes are federal taxes. If you're working and not exempt (certain state employees, the Amish and some others), you pay payroll taxes. Since 50% of the population isn't unemployed, that means most of them are still paying payroll taxes, therefore they're paying federal taxes.
  - 13rules 14y ago
    The original premise is that successful people owe something to society because there are roads, bridges, technology advancements like the internet, etc, etc. without which they would not be successful. My point is, what about the people that are doing nothing? They have the same access to the roads, bridges, internet, but they do nothing. Don't they owe some sort of debt to society to go try to work instead of just collecting from others? What I meant is the federal income tax ... which is what funds a majority of this country's expenditures. I work. I pay my taxes. I donate money to non-profit organizations. I'm a good citizen. And I'm sick of being told by a bunch of redistributionist minded people that I owe more back to the collective good of society just because I have been successful and someone else hasn't.
    - Jtsummers 14y ago
      You claim 50% contribute nothing. I offered a rebuttal. You insisted 50% do nothing. I offered a rebuttal. 42% of federal revenue is from income tax. 42% from social security and Medicare taxes. 50% pays no federal income tax due to unemployment or low wages placing them below the poverty line or the use of various deductions. I have not disputed that. You draw a false conclusion that that indicates they contribute nothing. You have expressed a belief based on a feeling rather than fact that 50% of the population is worthless.
      - 13rules 14y ago
        They are contributing nothing to the federal income tax, which is the major contributor to the benefits and entitlements that are handed out. I don't know why you think that is feeling rather than fact. I didn't say they were worthless, just not contributing. Just because I said earlier "that's how it feels" doesn't mean that I am trying to argue everything from an emotional standpoint ... I'm very well read on the subject - as I'm sure you are ... we just happen to disagree.
        potatolicious 14y ago
        > "I'm very well read on the subject" It certainly doesn't seem this way. You started this whole argument by stating a ridiculous falsehood: that the majority of America "sits on their asses" while the few "do all the work". Furthermore, you state that every resource has been granted to them "yet they do nothing". Jtsummers then explained quite clearly that characterizing the middle class "doing nothing" and "sitting on their asses" is grossly false. You started this thing with an incredibly disingenuous framing and appeal to emotion, going so far as to state an obvious falsehood. Then you, incredulously, claim that you weren't trying to argue things from an emotional perspective. Right, because the claim that most people "sit on their asses" while the few, the honorable (like yourself, presumably) "do all the work" and that these people "do nothing"... that's not an attempt at emotional argument at all! After Jtsummer continues on his journey of reasoning, you now make one more concession and try to gloss it over by insisting that you never meant to claim these people were "worthless". Your emotional framing failed, so now you're ducking behind the excuse that you never meant any value judgment with your claims - because "sitting on their ass" is totally not a value judgment at all! If there's one thing I cannot abide in arguments/debates its disingenuousness. If you try to frame an argument purely emotionally and get caught in it, own it.