(05-30-2012 12:11 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I have no desire to be a billionaire with more money than I could ever need, but if I do I'll subject myself to higher taxes. I'll grin and bear it, and shoulder the burden for all, and pay those extra couple percentage points. I don't know how I'll carry on, but I'll find a way.

I have great news for you Max!

If there isn't enough money for the poor, or for the government, or for the growth policies you desire, you can pay more! Please ensure your checks indicate "to support the bloated Federal Government" in the memo field.

Bureau of the Public Debt Department G P.O. Box 2188 Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-2188

Plus, don't forget to file a simple 1040 and put the amount of your income, the amount of tax your owe, compute the difference, and pay at your full rate.

At this stage of my life, I can't afford to pay that much, and would be foolish to. Get back to me in 10-20 years. But hopefully by then I'll be taxed at a rate high enough so that I feel I'm paying my fair share.

I know you're both just telling me to mind my own business, but even if I get to be a billionaire against all odds (I don't know of any lawyer billionaires), and I give most of it away, that's still only 1 in 50 or so billionaires spending/giving his fortune. As for "setting an example", Andrew Carnegie did that very famously and there are still billionaires hoarding, so I don't have faith my "example" will inspire them. Clearly this is a collective problem requiring collective action.

Besides, it is our business. No billionaire truly earns his income by himself. The trucking empire clearly owes itself to the interstate highway system, as does every other industry that relies on transportation. Everyone who sells good and services in this country owes his success to the outstanding market/consumer base we have, educated by the government and protected by our police, firefighters and military. If you think you created your billions all by yourself let's drop you in the Congo jungle and see how much wealth you come out of there with in 20 years. Moreover, I take issue with the concept of all income having been "earned" (even though I sometimes use it myself). Does the CEO who spend every other day on the golf course truly earn 500x the salary of the guy working in his factory? Did Mitt Romney earn his $25 million from Bain last year while campaigning around Iowa and New Hampshire? You know, there's an old saying: "Let me tell you how to make $10 million. First, take $1 million..." Not to mention the underhanded, unethical ways many of the rich get to be rich.

(05-30-2012 01:02 PM)Max Power Wrote:  At this stage of my life, I can't afford to pay that much, and would be foolish to. Get back to me in 10-20 years.

Yea I'm sure in 10-20 years when you possibly are married with kids you'll be dying to give away more money...

But hell kicking the Can down the road is AOK by Obama supporters..

(05-30-2012 01:02 PM)Max Power Wrote:  At this stage of my life, I can't afford to pay that much, and would be foolish to. Get back to me in 10-20 years. But hopefully by then I'll be taxed at a rate high enough so that I feel I'm paying my fair share.

But you could send a even just a little more of your sweet, sweet earned income to the government to support the programs you demand? Just enough to be symbolic? No? Then until that time, I won't believe that liberals really care about this crisis until those liberals who tell me that there’s a crisis start to act that way themselves.

(05-30-2012 01:02 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Clearly this is a collective problem requiring collective action.

Here we go again. Another example of Liberals: Putting Your Money Where Their Checking Account Is. "Collectively" we all already pay taxes.

(05-30-2012 01:02 PM)Max Power Wrote:  No billionaire truly earns his income by himself. The trucking empire clearly owes itself to the interstate highway system, as does every other industry that relies on transportation. Everyone who sells good and services in this country owes his success to the outstanding market/consumer base we have, educated by the government and protected by our police, firefighters and military.

WTF? Seriously? Have the citizens of this country not already paid for the interstate highway system through taxes? Police, firefighters and the military are already (supposed to be at least, if the damn budget was properly managed) paid for by taxes! I paid my own money, (AFTER TAXES BTW) to attend our alma matter. I was on an athletic scholarship yes but there were lots of hours at Lord Stanley's and the Dill Pickle washing dishes, slinging beers and delivering lemonade to make that needed additional cash. It wasn't given to me, like so many other have received their sweet taxpayer cash.

(05-30-2012 01:02 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Does the CEO who spend every other day on the golf course truly earn 500x the salary of the guy working in his factory?

You show show me a CEO who spends every other day on the golf course, and I'll show 100,000 CEO's who work 80 hour, 6 day weeks.

(05-30-2012 01:02 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Not to mention the underhanded, unethical ways many of the rich get to be rich.

As opposed to the virtuous welfare fraudsters?

Obviously nobody is going to pay more than they owe. We all have ways we would prefer to spend (or not spend) our money. And very rarely is that preference to go toward a social safety net for poor people, or to individually spend to help the economy. So the government needs to step in.

Yes we already pay taxes, but not enough, and not progressively enough.

Yes we have already paid for the federal highway system. That's the point. It's a collective venture that we all paid into and all benefit from. And when I use it, I'm benefitting from something that is made possible by our society as a whole, that wouldn't be possible if I were to go at it alone. I'm traveling on my money, your money, everyone's money. And it's all wealth we've created collectively through the capitalist system, made possible by the codependent consumers and producers of America.

I doubt many of those 100,000 16 hour workday CEOs are making the 500x salary I alluded to. And even if they are, their salaries are still obscene.

I'm open to hearing your plans to cut down on welfare fraud, so long as the answer isn't "end welfare."

(05-30-2012 02:45 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm open to hearing your plans to cut down on welfare fraud, so long as the answer isn't "end welfare."

• Stop the double dipping between state and federal programs.
• Stop paying dead people and other ineligible recipients.
• Attach work requirements to welfare programs.
• And most importantly welfare programs should be designed to help individuals become self-reliant rather than dependent on government.

And if you want to get all hard-core, encorage marriage and stable familes.

“We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.” Ronald Reagan, 1968

"I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency.… As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, I’ve seen it where people weren’t encouraged to work, weren’t encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you’re progressive you’ve got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed." Barack Obama, 2011

1. I'd like to return it all to the federal government. When the 1990s welfare reform split them and gave some welfare programs as a block grant to the states you opened yourself to a whole host of problems. Some states just use their grants to balance their own budgets.

2. Ok.

3. Haven't we already done this?

4. How?

How do you propose we encourage marriage and stabilize families?

They only likely way to really root out fraud is to hire more government workers to find it!

(05-30-2012 04:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  1. I'd like to return it all to the federal government. When the 1990s welfare reform split them and gave some welfare programs as a block grant to the states you opened yourself to a whole host of problems. Some states just use their grants to balance their own budgets.

We should never, as Americans, encourge more Federal Government programs. Case in point: the 1996 welfare reform demanded by Republicans and enacted into law by President Clinton. The states were given broader flexibility in how best to use the funds, which gives each state the the opportunity to increase employment, marriage, abstinence and decrease poverty based on their own state populations needs and demands. A Federal program cannot properly arrange the proper reform across 50 unique states.

(05-30-2012 04:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  3. Haven't we already done this?

There are 70 federal welfare programs in operation today, and only one requires able-bodied recipients to work or look for work. However many State programs have welfare to work models. This is another reason to allow the States to manage welfare programs.

(05-30-2012 04:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  4. How?

Work programs. Education programs. Job training programs. And yes, perhaps most heartlessly, an expiration of benefits. Welfare must become a avenue to work and responsibility, and not become a dependency..

(05-30-2012 04:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  How do you propose we encourage marriage and stabilize families?

Culture is everything. Now that's a politically incorrect thought that can get you in trouble as much as we ALL suspect it is true, but we have to stop making this a contest about who’s the most sensitive and easily offended when saying "familes and fathers are good role models."

LS, who is going to fund these work programs, education programs and job training programs?

(05-30-2012 04:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  LS, who is going to fund these work programs, education programs and job training programs?

I would prefer each state fund its own welfare programs through a combination of state and local tax receipts, private donations and charities and elimininate most or all Federal welfare programs. Now I'm sure some policy wonk could show a few instances of the benefits of a federally administered welfare program, but all-in-all the States are the owners or deniers of welfare programs. That way I as a State resident can decide to move if the welfare State is too burdensome. None of us can move from the USA and the Federal welfare state.

Please remember, it's simply not the responsibilty of the Federal government of the United States of America to provide welfare support to its citizens.

It could be the responsibilty of the State you live it, it could be the responsbility of any number of privately sponsored national organizations, or it could be the responsibility of any number of local food banks, churches or charity organizations.

If Illinois wants the encourage unwed mothers dependent on government cheese, so be it. If Alabama wants to say Welfare to Work with a of maximum 2 years of bennies, so be it. That is the majesty of the 10th Amendment: that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.

But it is NOT the responsibilty of the government of the United States of America to provide welfare support to its citizens.

All well and good I suppose LS, but the fact of the matter is that our democratically elected representatives over many a year have disagreed with you. They feel it is in the best interest of the country as a whole to provide a safety net to some, who through no fault of their own, need some help. And I think you will find a majority of US citizens would support that.

Sure, you are going to have some fraud. You always will. But I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water! There is still a roll the US government can play here. And while you point out that folks could move to states with less burdensome welfare states, you have to realize that on the flip-side, it would be next to impossible for folks who actually need the help to move to a state with better benefits.