This kind of puts some things in a different perspective. It's so easy to scapegoat the poor.

The University of California at Berkeley calculated that federal welfare programs cost taxpayers roughly $152 billion per year — and 73 percent of that is going to people with at least one part-time job.

In reality, the average monthly benefit paid out to SNAP recipients is a paltry $133 per person. TANF benefits averaged out to just $392 per household in 2010. And again, these benefits are only available for 5 years throughout a person’s lifetime. That isn’t exactly enough to break the budget of the largest economy in the world.

Even $152 billion pales in comparison to tax breaks and loopholes to the fabulously wealthy. Through loopholes and tax breaks $1.5 trillion each year is set aside for the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry, too-big-to-fail banks, performance-based bonuses for corporate CEOs, (not salary, BONUSES) corporate jets, and other superfluous programs that get special special privileges by our tax code. That’s ten times as much as the figure cited by UC Berkeley.

THINK ABOUT THIS and 73 percent of them are holding down a part time job.

(04-08-2016 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This kind of puts some things in a different perspective. It's so easy to scapegoat the poor.

The University of California at Berkeley calculated that federal welfare programs cost taxpayers roughly $152 billion per year — and 73 percent of that is going to people with at least one part-time job.

In reality, the average monthly benefit paid out to SNAP recipients is a paltry $133 per person. TANF benefits averaged out to just $392 per household in 2010. And again, these benefits are only available for 5 years throughout a person’s lifetime. That isn’t exactly enough to break the budget of the largest economy in the world.

Even $152 billion pales in comparison to tax breaks and loopholes to the fabulously wealthy. Through loopholes and tax breaks $1.5 trillion each year is set aside for the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry, too-big-to-fail banks, performance-based bonuses for corporate CEOs, (not salary, BONUSES) corporate jets, and other superfluous programs that get special special privileges by our tax code. That’s ten times as much as the figure cited by UC Berkeley.

THINK ABOUT THIS and 73 percent of them are holding down a part time job.

CEO's and corporations create good paying jobs. I have no problem with performance-based bonuses. If a company does well, they can hire more people, and reward their current employees.

Why do you hate rich people?

....don't care....

not paying for them anymore....

PERIOD@!!!!!!

Bonuses should be taxed the same as income. I have no problems with performance based salary either but it shouldn't be treated differently in the eyes of tax laws.

(04-08-2016 08:02 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bonuses should be taxed the same as income. I have no problems with performance based salary either but it shouldn't be treated differently in the eyes of tax laws.

which is the problem....money matters to the 'whole' of the abyss....

we are not equal....you and fit should know this....

it then becomes a matter of 'matter'....

will leave that open ended for you......

(04-08-2016 08:02 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bonuses should be taxed the same as income. I have no problems with performance based salary either but it shouldn't be treated differently in the eyes of tax laws.

Rules for rich are different than those for working stiffs, I think. When I worked in newspapers, we'd get 'bonus' money for doing extra work -- like I'd always do the copy and photography for our annual football 'tabs' ... (previews on local high school teams). It was actually more work, but they labeled it a bonus and took more out in taxes. Almost half, usually.

Complain and they'd just shrug. It's apparently legal.

(04-08-2016 07:38 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This kind of puts some things in a different perspective. It's so easy to scapegoat the poor.

The University of California at Berkeley calculated that federal welfare programs cost taxpayers roughly $152 billion per year — and 73 percent of that is going to people with at least one part-time job.

In reality, the average monthly benefit paid out to SNAP recipients is a paltry $133 per person. TANF benefits averaged out to just $392 per household in 2010. And again, these benefits are only available for 5 years throughout a person’s lifetime. That isn’t exactly enough to break the budget of the largest economy in the world.

Even $152 billion pales in comparison to tax breaks and loopholes to the fabulously wealthy. Through loopholes and tax breaks $1.5 trillion each year is set aside for the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry, too-big-to-fail banks, performance-based bonuses for corporate CEOs, (not salary, BONUSES) corporate jets, and other superfluous programs that get special special privileges by our tax code. That’s ten times as much as the figure cited by UC Berkeley.

THINK ABOUT THIS and 73 percent of them are holding down a part time job.

CEO's and corporations create good paying jobs. I have no problem with performance-based bonuses. If a company does well, they can hire more people, and reward their current employees.

Why do you hate rich people?

That's a standard response ... question tax breaks the wealthy get and get accused of hating the rich.

Maybe a better question in this instance is why do you hate the poor?

(04-08-2016 08:14 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 08:02 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bonuses should be taxed the same as income. I have no problems with performance based salary either but it shouldn't be treated differently in the eyes of tax laws.

Rules for rich are different than those for working stiffs, I think. When I worked in newspapers, we'd get 'bonus' money for doing extra work -- like I'd always do the copy and photography for our annual football 'tabs' ... (previews on local high school teams). It was actually more work, but they labeled it a bonus and took more out in taxes. Almost half, usually.

Complain and they'd just shrug. It's apparently legal.

...is why I'm now indy and able to negotiate....

fk 'em/////

(04-08-2016 08:15 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 07:38 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This kind of puts some things in a different perspective. It's so easy to scapegoat the poor.

The University of California at Berkeley calculated that federal welfare programs cost taxpayers roughly $152 billion per year — and 73 percent of that is going to people with at least one part-time job.

In reality, the average monthly benefit paid out to SNAP recipients is a paltry $133 per person. TANF benefits averaged out to just $392 per household in 2010. And again, these benefits are only available for 5 years throughout a person’s lifetime. That isn’t exactly enough to break the budget of the largest economy in the world.

Even $152 billion pales in comparison to tax breaks and loopholes to the fabulously wealthy. Through loopholes and tax breaks $1.5 trillion each year is set aside for the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry, too-big-to-fail banks, performance-based bonuses for corporate CEOs, (not salary, BONUSES) corporate jets, and other superfluous programs that get special special privileges by our tax code. That’s ten times as much as the figure cited by UC Berkeley.

THINK ABOUT THIS and 73 percent of them are holding down a part time job.

CEO's and corporations create good paying jobs. I have no problem with performance-based bonuses. If a company does well, they can hire more people, and reward their current employees.

Why do you hate rich people?

That's a standard response ... question tax breaks the wealthy get and get accused of hating the rich.

Maybe a better question in this instance is why do you hate the poor?

see.....that's another problem you guys have....we don't....we need them....

(04-08-2016 08:02 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bonuses should be taxed the same as income. I have no problems with performance based salary either but it shouldn't be treated differently in the eyes of tax laws.

Mach, I suspect you misunderstood what you read. Any corporate boss bonus is taxed as income. What you might be confused on is that the corporation can deduct the bonus as an expense and thus reduce the company's taxable income. But in reality, the top individual tax rate is higher than the corporate rate, so the government is going to get more money in the end. I don't know what other way this could be handled.

Now you could argue that some of these bonuses are not warranted which may be true as there have been discretionary bonuses paid to corporate executives that may look, and are, rather unseemly. That is a matter of corporate governance and if you follow the news, watch for anything about activists investors who are the free market solution to those events. (Yahoo is a current case in point.)

On the other hand, let me shock you with my position on carry interest. This is the "profit sharing" that goes to the hedge fund managers, usually 20%, and is currently treated as capital gains. This should be income.

(04-08-2016 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This kind of puts some things in a different perspective. It's so easy to scapegoat the poor.

The University of California at Berkeley calculated that federal welfare programs cost taxpayers roughly $152 billion per year — and 73 percent of that is going to people with at least one part-time job.

In reality, the average monthly benefit paid out to SNAP recipients is a paltry $133 per person. TANF benefits averaged out to just $392 per household in 2010. And again, these benefits are only available for 5 years throughout a person’s lifetime. That isn’t exactly enough to break the budget of the largest economy in the world.

Even $152 billion pales in comparison to tax breaks and loopholes to the fabulously wealthy. Through loopholes and tax breaks $1.5 trillion each year is set aside for the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry, too-big-to-fail banks, performance-based bonuses for corporate CEOs, (not salary, BONUSES) corporate jets, and other superfluous programs that get special special privileges by our tax code. That’s ten times as much as the figure cited by UC Berkeley.

THINK ABOUT THIS and 73 percent of them are holding down a part time job.

That's because it really isn't about the money. If republicans were really concerned about wasting money, they would have plenty of other places to look.

The real issue here is that the poor are predominately minorities. Minorities typically vote Democratic. If the poor have social programs that will allow them to be less concerned about how to put food on the table, it frees them up to be more concerned about political issues. Thus, it's a win for the Democratic Party.

The Republican party isn't concerned about money, they are concerned about a minorities gaining political power through a larger middle class. This is why they are against public schools, Obamacare, voting rights, etc. etc.

(04-08-2016 08:02 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bonuses should be taxed the same as income. I have no problems with performance based salary either but it shouldn't be treated differently in the eyes of tax laws.

Bonuses ARE taxed at a higher rate than salary. My husband's commission checks and performance bonuses get a bigger bite taken out of them by the feds. Depending on his total annual income, he can get some of it back when he files his income taxes (or not).

Thank You, Socratic for taking out the time to explain things further with a respectful tone. I appreciate it and it didn't go unnoticed.

I have said for years that what we spend on Welfare is pretty small in comparison to our budget. The problem is that it is "in our faces" every day. We see these people abusing this system constantly and it pisses us off. It is the entitlement mentality that is the problem with me. I know the system helps lots of folks and I have no problem helping those truly in need.

(04-08-2016 08:02 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bonuses should be taxed the same as income. I have no problems with performance based salary either but it shouldn't be treated differently in the eyes of tax laws.

They are taxed the same as income. I wonder how many other Democrats lack basic understanding of the tax code.

(04-08-2016 08:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This kind of puts some things in a different perspective. It's so easy to scapegoat the poor.

The University of California at Berkeley calculated that federal welfare programs cost taxpayers roughly $152 billion per year — and 73 percent of that is going to people with at least one part-time job.

In reality, the average monthly benefit paid out to SNAP recipients is a paltry $133 per person. TANF benefits averaged out to just $392 per household in 2010. And again, these benefits are only available for 5 years throughout a person’s lifetime. That isn’t exactly enough to break the budget of the largest economy in the world.

Even $152 billion pales in comparison to tax breaks and loopholes to the fabulously wealthy. Through loopholes and tax breaks $1.5 trillion each year is set aside for the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry, too-big-to-fail banks, performance-based bonuses for corporate CEOs, (not salary, BONUSES) corporate jets, and other superfluous programs that get special special privileges by our tax code. That’s ten times as much as the figure cited by UC Berkeley.

THINK ABOUT THIS and 73 percent of them are holding down a part time job.

That's because it really isn't about the money. If republicans were really concerned about wasting money, they would have plenty of other places to look.

The real issue here is that the poor are predominately minorities. Minorities typically vote Democratic. If the poor have social programs that will allow them to be less concerned about how to put food on the table, it frees them up to be more concerned about political issues. Thus, it's a win for the Democratic Party.

The Republican party isn't concerned about money, they are concerned about a minorities gaining political power through a larger middle class. This is why they are against public schools, Obamacare, voting rights, etc. etc.

Most poor people are white. That's a fact. Last figures I saw, the majority of people in prison were white, although it may be down to a plurality now with the demographics change among the young.

(04-08-2016 08:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Thank You, Socratic for taking out the time to explain things further with a respectful tone. I appreciate it and it didn't go unnoticed.

I admit that I wasn't particularly respectful. It just astounded me that there was such misinformation. We all pay taxes, though not all of us have gotten bonuses. But its pretty common at all levels in businesses.

It later occurred to me you could have been talking about the hedge fund managers (who donate heavily to Democrats). Their "carried interest" is taxed at the lower capital gains rate, but is still taxed.

They are taxed the same as income. I wonder how many other Democrats lack basic understanding of the tax code.


There is a way to hide some tax bite that these CEO's get away with in carve outs. I've seen it explained on 60 minutes. They take stocks and they defer it somehow and it ends up being taxed at 15% instead of the regular tax rate. Remember this is not their salary. It's the bonus and they do it specifically for tax purposes.


and I kind of chuckle when you say Democrats lack basic understanding. Crap 95% of us lack the understanding of it. We would have pitchforks and tar storming the capital if we were informed of all the carve outs.

It's meant to be complicated.

(04-08-2016 08:57 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I have said for years that what we spend on Welfare is pretty small in comparison to our budget. The problem is that it is "in our faces" every day. We see these people abusing this system constantly and it pisses us off. It is the entitlement mentality that is the problem with me. I know the system helps lots of folks and I have no problem helping those truly in need.

This!!!!!

What is most bothersome isn't the amount of money it costs. It's that, as usual, the government does a sh!tty job of administering the program - there is enough gaming and abuse of the system that average Joe's that pay taxes see the abuse often enough to "P!ss them off".

Not only is it easy to find the abuse, but it's likely that the "administration costs" of running the program are probably 3 to 4 times the cost of actually paying out the money.

Lastly, all the government handout programs need revamped so that there are "encouragements" built into the system to leave the system. As just one example - any physically able adult should have to show up somewhere and be put on highway trash duty in order to get funds. So long as they show up and work the highway trash detail - they get their government funding. Right now, it's just a "profitable" to sit on the porch as to actually have to do anything for the handouts.

TANF by definition is Temporary. If you are an able bodied male you're not living off of welfare. The WIC programs that stuff sure, I think somethings could be different there. The worst thing we are doing is giving more money when they have more children while o govt. assistance. I would make it that they do better with less kids. Maybe a bonus if they use contraception.