Why not just reduce taxes for poorer people

Your whole thread premise is faulty. As already stated, the poor already pay no income taxes. This is information that could have been found in 20 seconds with a Google search. Hey, I am all for outside the box thinking. But instead of teaching those essentially outside of what many would consider normal society (that we support I might add) that their behavior is ok by allowing them to not contribute to society, we get them to actually contribute to it. How we do this is admittedly a tough question. But it doesn’t and can’t begin until they are willing to begin to start taking responsibility for themselves instead of thinking the village should provide for their every need. The poor are poor because of their choices, not because they couldn’t contribute. They have just been trained that their behavior is ok so until that is reversed, nothing is every going to change.

And let’s face facts; the poor do not contribute much to society except a disproportionate percentage of the cigarette taxes they then receive back in social support programs. Why? Because the poor don’t have much disposable income and what little they do have, is disproportionately spent on a few things that are obvious to everyone. The shrinking middle class and all those above that level are the consumers’ spending money. Why? Because they actually have some disposable income (and credit cards). So instead of trying to reduce the taxes of poor who don’t contribute much (assuming they pay a little in taxes), don’t you think it is you are better off giving those breaks to the people who spend and have disposable income?

Seems like common sense to me but it is a point our government can’t seem to grasp. Instead they intend to punish those who are successful (and teach achievers extra achievement is not a good investment of scarce resources) and redistribute that to the very people who contribute the least to society and our economy. Why this isn’t obvious to more people is foreign to me.

But when you get right down to it, the reason is most people are stupid and don’t have any consciousness outside their bubble. Most never even consider the impact of policy, government interventions or how it will affect them (as it will someday). Then, the taxes of the business owner they work for are raised or they can’t get business lines of credit anymore even though they have never missed a payment (hey, the guidelines changed says the banker) and the worker is laid off, all of the sudden it is the greedy business owner who is “screwing the working man.” They never even consider the reasons why they lost their job because that is outside the bubble. Is it any wonder things are like they are and the country is where it is today?

Watch people drive and you can see how stupid people are. Some may not like this characterization of the masses and I get it. But I don’t care because the truth is obvious to anyone who takes a minute to see what is going on around him or her everyday. There’s the rub. That is outside the proverbial bubble of most people until it is not and then it is too late. It truly is scary where this country is heading. The people who are most successful are the ones who see things as they are, not as they want or expect them to be.

I will quit writing with a great saying: There are three types of people out there: Those who watch things happen, those who make things happen and those who wonder what the hell happened. There are far too many people in that last category today. And it is there own fault they are there. And they don’t even realize they are there until it is too late. Everyone is self made. Only successful people admit it.

Good trading all

BM

 

I didn't read the whole thread, but poor people don't pay tax anyway...

only 50% of all US households will have any federal tax liability for 2009.

 

Income taxes are not about receipts to the government, the government has an unlimited supply of paper. Taxes are about control and power over choices.

 

and when you count all the free services the lower income people get, the net "liability" to the federal govt shrinks that a lot more.

I remember seeing a welfare mother who saw what jobs pay, and saying "why should I do that? I make more than that from the govt..."

 

and when you count all the free services the lower income people get, the net "liability" to the federal govt shrinks that a lot more.

I remember seeing a welfare mother who saw what jobs pay, and saying "why should I do that? I make more than that from the govt..."

And some of those homeless people we see on TV actually make income, but choose not to live somewhere, or have mental problems or otherwise do not avail themselves of govt services.

 

No that's Mortgages and debt, taxes are just the fancy government word for piracy.

 

Sounds like you're tired of bending over and takin' it.

Come November, consider voting for anyone that promises to push the FairTax. This is the first step to keep this ship from sinking. Fairtax.org

 

A tax cut cannot be given to someone who is not paying taxes. The poor do not pay taxes so, by definition, a tax cut won't help them.

 

taxes for the poor is a bit like the 3 card trick.
They redistribute the money and take a big chunk of it for themselves - all legal of course. But then consider who were the silly sods who voted them in in the first place ?

oh boy the costs of keeping up your own golf course, swimming pool etc. are so high these days lol

 

Currently the poor don't pay income taxes so they vote for more government. It's not coming out of their pocket. For that reason progressive taxation simply leads to more government which is what the proponints of it want. That would stay the same with the FairTax. A flat consumption tax is the only form of taxation that leads to less government. Everybody pays it, criminals pay it, the poor pay it, the rich pay it a lot more, corporations would pay it.. everybody would be stuck with the reality that more government means higher prices. That would lead to less government and more freedom.

The opposing arguments are either centered around "it's regressive" or "it would cause a black market". I say regressive is good and black markets can never overtake a very big share of the GNP.