The "poor" never share

I see alot of liberals whom believe that the poor deserve a share of the riches wealth. I'll skip over the fact that wealth is a scalar not a division of all wealth. And ask the question:

Why aren't the "poor" of america taxed or asked to tax, to welfare those in 3rd world countries like somalia? Even a homeless man is rich in comparison, the can collect a months salary of an upper class man in somalia, in a single night.

Greed is the answer I believe. I'd like to hear some other opinions as well, though.

 

Cause some of your tax money already goes to help feed people in somalia?

Anyway, very bad argument. The U.S is not the world government

 

The way our economy works, every transaction is sharing. The poor share a far greater portion of their total income and assets than the wealthy do.

 

You would.

I find it amazing that the people who selectively back libertarian positions that protect wealthy privilege see so much greed in the poor.

But anyway:
1. Taxing poor people more will increase the need for assistance. It's pretty indirect to get aid by taxing the poor. An accounting trick at best. And it would most affect the working poor.
2. I would love to see what kind of bureaucracy you would create to find the tax liability of someone living off bottle returns and then going after them.
3. The poor pay local and state taxes. The working poor contribute taxes toward the entitlements that are such a huge part of the budget. All these taxes are regressive.
4. Your argument actually more logically calls for increased foreign aid than broadening the tax base. After all, liberals do not claim that the middle class should pay as much toward taxes as the rich, so it does not follow that liberals would support the poor taking as large a part in helping the third world as the rich or middle class. It does follow that we should be doing more to help the world poor.
5. Most poor people in America can be helped through relatively cheap assistance. Third world countries have added expenses: infrastructure, family planning (currently not supported by the US because we're dumb and prefer killing people slowly with overpopulation), corrupt governments that take money off the top to buy weapons to kill the people we're trying to help. Most of these problems can't be fixed with cash assistance. In some countries what we consider human rights are not protected-- giving them money does not stop this.

 

have the rich pay for that

 

Blame Bush

 

More of it is going to the less "poor" in our own country, more than 50% of our budget actually.

And you have no more right to the rich's money than a somalian has to your money. It doesn't matter where in the world you are, you don't have the right to anyone else's money.

First sentence is right. The second couldn't be more wrong.

We have a progressive tax system it's literally impossible that the rich are paying less than the poor. Let alone if we had any other fairer system. 99% of income tax comes from the top 50% of incomers.

Also, all the progressive tax does is keep poor people from becoming rich.

1. I don't think you should either, but I'm not the one claiming we should tax the rich and give to the poor. That's the liberal argument which is a two-faced lie. They don't give any of their money to the poor, why should I give any to them?
2. It's not my idea, I merely expanded on the fallacious liberal psyche. The whole forcing people to share with a squad ready to break into their house if they dont, doesn't sound to good when you're on the receiving end does it? And the best part is you are just as "accountable" to sharing to the 3rd world as I am to share with you. I wouldn't call it sharing though, armed robbery is more accurate.
3. 99% of the budget comes from the top 50% of incomers, I'm sorry but you're telling yet another bold faced lie. The poor do not pay any portion of the budget. But while we're on the topic of sharing I'd be happy to let them help out. For real, how about we just pay the same portion of our income, you pay 20%, and I pay 20%? Let's share the *burden*, not *my* wallet.
4. No, it doesn't. What it means is that the money you are stealing from me, shouldn't be going to the poor in america first. It should be going to the ones who are actually poor, and you get whatever's left. Which will probably be nothing, because that is the case with the middle class today.
5. Good point, we probably shouldn't be giving money to our "poor" for the same reason. They are poor for a reason, you can't give a poor man money and expect him to spend it as wisely as a rich man. After all the rich man got there through trial and error and learning how to spend his money correctly. Or learned from his father how to save and invest.

That is the only real difference between the rich and the poor, the rich saved and invested. The poor are cunning though, they simply band together and vote theft by majority legal, and steal the rich's savings so they can continue to live paycheck to paycheck and stack their credit card with debt.

Good idea, will it bother you if theres nothing left for the "poor" in america? Because the Somalians are much more in "need" than you.

These are straight from the liberal bible.

 

Let's stop kidding ourselves. Let the lying Democrats use those terms, not us:

1. Share the wealth
2. Contribute
3. give more
4. help out
5. revenue enhancements
6. ask

Republicans don't need to find words to conceal our true agenda. We say it as it is. Nobody "gives" to government and nobody, rich or poor, shares with others. It's involuntarily excised from them and without so much as a thank you. Government doesn't ask, it takes, at gun point, what it thinks it needs. The rule of thumb is very easy. There are only 2 classes in America, the provider class and the recipient class, and:

1. If you contribute to the system, you're greedy and you never "give" enough.

2. If you take from the system, you're exploited and you never get enough.

Welcome to the moral bankruptcy of the American Left.

 

I don't think those numbers are true. And either way, you're focused just on taxation. If capitalists are to be believed, every transaction is voluntary, right? Which is why wealthy people get so much credit for investing their money in business. But wealthy people spend a far smaller percentage of their income than poor people do, since they're wealthy and have more money left over to save. Which means that poor people, who spend a higher percentage of their income, and invest more money as a group, deserve more credit on the same basis.

 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07in05tr.xls

Read em and weep.

Every transaction is voluntary, except when force is present. I.e. crime lords, robbery, wealth redistribution, regulations. If it were not voluntary to buy your car, why did you buy it? Because you were better off without it, why did the car company sell it? Because they were better off with the cash. Voluntary.

The rich spend less of their money, because they are actually investing their money and using it smartly. If you give a poor man a rich mans income, unless he was on his way to being rich anyways, he'd be poor again in no time. The rich people in a free-market society are always going to be the ones who spend their dollar smarter than the poor.

I have no idea why you would think that since the poor spend all their money and have no savings account, this would mean they deserve more money. If anything they are only seeing the consequences of their own actions. You want that flatscreen TV, 4 kids, and direct TV? Well then you can't invest that money and retire rich. They cannot learn from their mistakes if they don't see those consequences. This is why I am so against wealth redistribution. It's not because I'm ruined by the extra 15% I pay in various taxes, it's because we are changing our society into one which doesn't reap what they sow.

In the end, whether it's 100 years from now or next election cycle, we will reap what we sow. And sometime after that, I hope before, people will understand that consequence is an important aspect of the learning process. And if we want to learn as a society we are going to have to stop pretending we can escape it forever.

Any person can have an investment account in stocks or bonds, and their investment makes the same return as anyone else's dollar rich or poor in the same account. The poor are treated equally, they don't deserve more for "their investment" as they are getting the same return. I can't wrap my head around what fallacious logic you could use to change this fact.

 

The "poor" are quick to share. They're just not stupid enough to give money to the government if they can avoid it.

 

And when the rich do that, they're called greedy.

Leftists truly are hypocrits, aren't they?

 

Guess who contributes a higher % of their income to charity? The Poor (and then the Middle Class).

Guess who has a higher rate of volunteering for community causes? The Middle Class (but then the poor).

Guess who is taxed the most, once sales taxes, payroll taxes, public service fees (driver's licence, sports, etcetera) and so forth (and once tax loopholes are taken into account? The Middle Class (and then the poor).

Guess who donates the most money to political causes? The Rich, then the Middle Class, then the poor.

Guess who has been getting richer while the Middle Class and the Poor have basically had no change in real wealth in the last 3 decades? You guessed it - the Rich!

Guess who is whining while they're wining and dining? The Rich!

 

I think your whole post is pure dog scat, but just for scat and giggles, do you have anything to back this up?

 

Off the top of my head, the rich donate the most money. They therefor also "volunteer" more, because $100,000 can pay 5 non-profit workers for a year. A volunteer would have to work 5 years to do that.

The middle-class has been getting bigger in the past 3 decades, not the rich.

The only way you can make the rich "look" like they're getting bigger is if you don't graph the numbers on a logarithmic scale. Leftist media outlets commonly "forget" to do this, so I can see why you'd think so.

The top 50% pay 99% of all income taxes, including loopholes.

I hear the poor complain 50x more than the rich about their apparent need, or should i say greed, of more wealth.

So basically, you need some sort of unbiased source for all your claims. And it seems you are lying or skewing the picture about every single one of them.

 

You are very correct, venik.

Your remarks are very sincere, directly to the point and well crafted

Here are several other thoughtful opinions I believe you may agree with!

It was Adam Smith who wisely said, “The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations.”

"Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State."

-- Margaret Thatcher

Socialism is great if you are willing to accept a much reduced standard of living and an oppressive central government who is always telling you what to do and how to live your life to the benefit of the state!

Cuba, North Korea and the old Soviet Union and East Germany are three perfect examples!

 

Skeptic-f: "Guess who contributes a higher % of their income to charity? The Poor (and then the Middle Class)."

Not true. It's a common lie from the left. The poor who are on the dole pay zero in taxes. They have no earned income, they pay no taxes. If they work and earn income, they pay Social Security, sales tax, and the plethora of other liberals taxes but they probably get earned income tax credits for income tax.

No, the poor do not have a higher percentage of their income taxed than do the middle class or upper class. I refuse to say anyone "contributes" seeing money taken by force isn't a contribution, is it?

 

Hell yeah! It is the poor's fault! That is who we need to take more from! Look at those selfish homeless people in the USA! Don't they realize how lucky they are to get 1 hot mean a week from a soup kitchen!
Greedy pricks.

 

Take more? We don't take anything.

I think you didn't understand the premise, that we take from the "poor" and give to the real poor accross the world. Who are starving, whereas a homeless man in my town makes $100 a day.

My premise is less selfish than the liberal premise that we only share it with the voters who put the thieves in office.

The point is liberals are stealing money under the guise of sharing, when they don't share with the people who need it most. They share it with the people who put them into power. That's not honorable, thats not self-less, and this premise proves the hypocrisy.

The only self-less thing to do is to donate your own money, to those who need it most. Not someone else's money, as bribery for their vote.

 

Some people think they are wealthy elite. Fact is if you pay more percent than a poor person, you are not an elite, you are a wanna be, think I am, elite wealthy.

If you do not have an off shore account to evade taxes, you are not in the same tax bracet at the wealthy elite.

If you do not get stock options, and if most of your income is not from capital gains, you are not a wealthy person.

If you pay into social security and medicare, you are just a commoner not an elite.

If you pay over 20% of your taxes to income tax you are just a common wannabe who is fooling knowone. Not me at least.

If you do not meet all the above, you fail the qualification of being a wealthy elite in the USA.

 

I question all these statements, for one capital gains is not always 15%, and you can retire on an aggressive savings plan and retire and live off capital gains...and not be rich at all.

But what good does this rant do for the upper middle class paying 35% on their last dollar, when 50% of that tax goes to somebody else. It doesn't make the wealth distribution system any more fair.

I say, good for those who can buy their way out. They owe nobody welfare. And their tax is probably on a more reasonable setting.

 

Part of the problem is a cultural problem. American pop culture is poisoned with excessive focus on what we don't have instead of what we do have. So as a result, we've got a nation full of greedy, envious, ungrateful people who hate everyone with more than them and don't appreciate (*)(*)(*)(*) that they have. They just walk around feeling angry and inadequate all the time.

I don't care what your living conditions are like here. If you think you've got it bad in America, try traveling to somewhere like Ethiopia and then see if you still think you live in poverty.

Instead of sitting around brooding all the time about what somebody else has that you want, try spending a little time everyday thinking about the things you do have that you are thankful for. Because I guarantee if you went blind tomorrow, you'd suddenly realize how grateful you were for your sight when you had it. The fact that we can take something so significant for granted shows where most of our focus lies. Because at the end of the day, if you were a billionaire but you couldn't see anything, how fulfilling would your life really be?

 

I agree.
The "poor in spirit" never share.
That is the main problem with right-wing ideology.
It's all about I, me, mine for them.

 

Ummmm - they are poor because THEY DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY!!

And it is my experience that often "the poor" are proportionately MORE generous than the wealthy. If you only get $200 a week but give away $20 to someone else then you are being a bloody sight more generous than the Rupert Murdochs of this world who would not give a Tinker's fart to a baby dying of hunger if it were placed in their arms