Maybe liberals on the forum can explain this to me and others

it is not a flat tax that is regressive, it is the myriad of deductions and exemptions and differing tax rates on earned and unearned income that make it unfair and allow the "rich" not to pay the share of the cost of government that they should.

you want an inheritance tax, fine I can understand that but to keep taxing the same property every year is wrong. It is not like local goverment where that is done to pay for local services. The guy has 10 mill in wealth and chooses not to live off the $500,000 of income it produces, the 500,000 is taxed not the 10 mill at some rate you propose in addition to the tax on the 500,000 of income. .

 

Due to your lecture, surely you have accurate figures for us to look over as to charity donated by government vs charity donated by the public? Can you give us concrete figures?

 

Taxes are not offered as a course in any high school I know of. I took income tax law at college. But more than that. I took a full week course at HR Block one time that was all day long every day, on just real estate law taxation. Taxes are one hell of a hard topic for the majority of Americans.

And most never took any courses on how tax laws originated or are excused by far too many of the public.

They seem to have thought they comprend taxes off personal forms filled out by their tax preparers.

Puzzles me totally as to why they believe they grasp taxation or the correct duty to pay for various taxes.

Income taxes flatly charged supposedly hurt the poor. But when has a single Democrat ranted over the sales taxes charged by cities, counties and states? Even the Federal fuel trax is flat. That tax they never rant against by screaming bloody murder it is a flat tax that hurts the poor. They do not care.

 

Sure, but you would have have give me the site that has kept up with total charity to the poor in america, and then the total spent on social safety nets, during the exact same time period. (I could not find a site with such stats)

During the great depression, the people devastated by that depression out numbered charitable hearts, and there were loads of egg thieves and chicken thieves. Here in the south we cleaned out our deer population, so that when I was young, it was rare that anyone ever saw a deer to harvest. Thankfully we brought them back. But my family was lucky in that were owned a 500 acre farm, and while my dad said there was no money to buy shoes, they never went hungry, as did other farmers outside of the dust bowl west of us.

In so far as me lecturing, sure, I understand that when an ideology fails, such as yours, that any fact given must be called a lecture. It is a fact that the desire to max out profits by big bankers and big corporations is what drove offshoring out economy. Of course, you might believe money is never a motivator to do anything, but reasonable, rational people would beg to differ.

Being an ideological driven person, requires blinders, and that is why I despise all ideologues, both left and right. I admire pragmatists, which is why I still admire FDR.

 

I did not get my answer so I will move on and not press you further. FDR to me was clearly an ideologue. My ideology is freedom. At the core of my being is the quest for freedom. I can't however ask for freedom only for me and ignore others such as companies, corporations and hard working people who own businesses.

 

You did not get an answer, perhaps because you already knew that no such stats existed? So, if one wanted to ascertain the fact of the matter, it would not be done with stats, but by putting together historical record, using newspapers and such, that credibly evidenced that the suffering outnumbered charitable hearts, during the great depression? My own mother was perhaps saved, by one of the work programs instituted by FDR and democrats, the WPA. While the wages were low, at least they financed my mother being able to see a doctor, as a very young infant, which would not have happened without her father being employed by the WPA. If you want to know why FDR was so popular and won his seat of power time and time again, it was because enough americans actually felt in their bones that he did make a difference for the people devastated by the kind of capitalism that could not provide for enough people at that time. And the kind of capitalism that led to the crash of 29 in the first place.

It is well known that FDR stated that he was a pragmatist, and if something did not work, then one should try another route, regardless of ideology. He was perhaps the last pragmatist we had, although it can be argued that Truman and Ike were both such people.

One thing is a fact though. FDR was disliked by the conservatives while he was president, and he is still disliked, and even hated today by that same ideology, or those who hold it. The purists. Ike had some choice words to say about this contingent as well, who were much smaller in number back then when compared to today.

Thing is, the beliefs of cons, some of them I agree with. But being a purist, either left or right IMO is idiocy, and the ideology becomes more important than solving problems, and there is no room for pragmatism, if pragmatism strays away from a purist conservative ideology.

There are some good beliefs held by both the moderate left and moderate right, trouble is, neither of these groups exist in any useful numbers today. I see nothing but extremism, or mostly extremism coming from both camps. And some of this extremism is shared by people in both parties. It crosses party lines, some of it, like perpetual war for perpetual peace and the dangers to freedom as seen in these national security acts, with heads of intel lying to congress, and then getting caught, and still keeping their jobs!! Both parties being silent on this, and refusing to lobby the DOJ to go after these criminals.

 

Rather than allow you to pass judgement against me, i went to a neutral site called the political compass to allow them to assess me as to left right center or whatever.

I tested as centrist. A click right and up and there I stand.

I do not see FDR as a pragmatist since to him the only solution was his and he gave us socialism.

For a good many years the public were not wards of the state. My parents loved FDR so it stands to reason i would also love him. But as I put more into research, it was not Wall St banks nor the stock market that crashed the 29-33 market. It was not a sole crash. It was an avalanche of a number of important sectors. (Read the forgotten man by Amity Shlaes and the paper written by Friedman awarding him a nobel prize in economics for more of an understanding.

Neither of my parents were hired by a FDR program either. Dad worked on people's cars to make his living and mom was a house mother. More than any ideology i came to my philosophy using excellent tools known as books. A good book to add to the list is by William E. Simon called A Time for Truth. That book is alleged a book that belongs in every persons library even if they shun accurate economists views on FDR.

When helped and you credit any president, suddenly to you he is a splendid chap. Using other people's money to build his reputation. FDR never spent a dime on the poor. He did his deeds with other people's earnings. Same with Trump, build the wall and he uses other peoples earnings. I pragmatically realize that.

Finally, WW2 dragged this country away from the severe Depression. Those incomes really paid much better.

 

It's based on reality.

Are you telling us you don't see a relationship between the explosion of unwed childbirths among welfare recipient and the welfare that is paid to these young women only if they have children out of wedlock?

 

A real conservative like me considers all social programs by federal government as an improper role. I think every one of them should be moved to the states, the private sector or the recycle bin. The constitution even calls for it..

 

^This post was worthy of necroing an ANCIENT 3-month old thread?

Maybe next time you should consider starting a new thread, instead of necroing ancient BS.

Nothing personal, just a friendly suggestion.

As to the actual topic of the OP?

I would suggest Google.

 

Nope. You are allowed to have your own opinions but if you expect to convince others data and evidence is necessary.

 

Yeah.. The connection between welfare and single parenting is just a coincidence..

Go with that.

 

So far you haven't made a connection. Oh, and being a single parent isn't limited to people on welfare. Perhaps you should start a movement to eliminate divorce.

 

How many times have I treated you like this?

 

Since I never said single parenting is limited to people on welfare you are arguing with yourself.