You just randomly pick a number to decide who's poor? Hmph. The problem (from many on the right) is that there is a significant part of the "poor" population that choose not to work and live off the gov't. There's a very big distinction between these folks and those that are legitimately deserving. The image in one's mind of "poor" when the topic is raised greatly influences the proposed remedy.
oh no, it's not random at all. We as a people pick a number we all agree on. Not random at all. Like...10%. We all agree to help the people who are the 10% lowest income earners. How is that random? It's a defined number we all chose. Yes, we could have picked a random number like 12% or 92%, but since we are not random, we pick a non random number we can all agree on...like 10%
I don't think anyone is proposing the government cater to freeloaders who take advantage of the system. Just because those individuals exist does not mean that's the *intent*. On the other hand if you structure the system around an every man for himself type mentality you will quickly approach jungle law. You do not want that.
no, those of us that have done all right for ourself have agreed to pay for the poor. But we want the poor clearly defined. Like based on math, not how you feel. You can always take 10% out of my paycheck to give to the 10% who are poor.
The poor have their problems also. The inconsiderate democrats are forcing them into a higher tax bracket requiring drastic action. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-22/obamas-minimum-wage-utopia-just-hit-brick-wall IMO, poor in the majority of other countries in the world is not the same thing as poor in America. No society can have everybody on the dole somehow (corporations, handicapped, tax exemptions, endless wars funding large corporations etc.). I suspect that simply spending efficiently would erase the deficit in no time. In my experience most people with a job don't realize they are "the rich". Newspapers paint a picture of millions to be rich, but taxing everything a rich person earns over millions a year wouldn't even make a dent IMO. There is a shortage of rich people apparently.The poor have never figured out that paying smaller benefits is a direct tax on the poor. My suggestion is to have a politican lie tax. Everytime a politician or civil servant tells a lie, they have to pay 100$ into the jar. The budget would be balanced very very soon. Truth is fatal to politicians IMO.
Hillary Clinton's capital gains tax proposal raises tax compliance complexity. It's going in the opposite direction from simplicity and reform. Brokers are still struggling with cost basis regulations calling for beefed up 1099B tax reporting. Clinton's proposal of sliding scale long-term rates on upper income will have to be applied by brokers on all 1099Bs since brokers don't know a taxpayer's income.
It's her token offering for tax increases. In the scheme of things, it could be a lot worse. But I agree that it's adding to complexity rather than smoothing our tax code out.
Its just BS campaign speech. None of these people are going to do anything they actually say if elected. The position of president isn't even where the real power is but unfortunately Americans either lack the critical thinking capacity or discipline to actually care.
No engineering. Simple economics. Tobacco and alcohol consumption add to aggregate medical expenditures. So taxing both at a higher rate makes sense in light of what tends to follow. Lower income earners spend proportionately more of their income on necessities, so it makes sense, you know, for survival. It's not unfair since the rich pay no more tax on the same portion of their income, and the poor would also pay at a higher rate on the incremental amount if and when they start earning more. Where's the unfair? Mortgage deduction insurance makes buying more affordable. The more it is affordable, the more people buy. The more people buy, the more that is built. The more that is built, the more jobs that are created in the process. Economics. Round and round we go.