[quote]orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
It will vary according to the state: for example, in Florida the giveaways are nowhere near so great, but that data for Virginia is shocking.
Absolute insanity.
Really?
They are literally destroying the incentive to work and to learn and teach the skills necessary to hold and keep a job.
In essence they destroy the social capital capitalism has created and depends upon and [b]create a class of people that is not capable of providing for itself.[/b]
They stay in power by keeping the poor poor.
That is sinister but not insane.
[/quote]
I have seen the system work and it does exactly this. This is why I hardly bother to vote anymore, because neither party will do anything about it. Not because they rely on the votes of the poor to stay in power, or even because they have sinister motives, but because the voters in the suburbs like welfare. It makes them feel good, as another poster said.
They have no idea of how crippling and destructive these feel good programs really are. When you explain how it really works, on real people, they think you are either lying, or their is some part of the equation that you don’t know about. They close their eyes to reality, it’s too insane.
It’s like recycling. If you believe that the environment really is in trouble, then you know that recycling is a joke. The house is burning down and you’re pissing on it. People do it because it assuages the guilt that comes from their lifestyles of conspicuous consumption. Same thing with welfare. They’re to stingy and “busy” to help their fellow man, that would mean actually getting close to and involved with the type of people they’d rather not have anything to do with, so they get the government to do it for them.
[quote]tedro wrote:
There was a pretty decent article about this in a recent issue of Forbes.
A couple major talking points:
[i]While the first $60,000 of her income would be lightly taxed, the next $60,000 would be hit with what is in effect a 79% tax rate. Given a choice between a part-time or easy job paying $60,000 and a demanding, stress-ridden job paying $120,000, Lederman would be wise to take the former. In the tougher job she would be contributing twice as much to the economy. But she wouldn’t be doing herself much good.[i]
[i]With their older son in his freshman year at Colgate and their middle son a high school senior eyeing similarly pricey schools, Denver residents Randy S. and Valerie Lewis decided she’d have to go back to work after 17 years as a stay-at-home mom. Valerie, 46, is applying for local teaching jobs paying $35,000. If she lands one, taxes will eat up $15,000 and the need-based aid they’d be eligible for will decline by $10,000, figures college finance consultant Troy Onink, who runs Stratagee.com.
That leaves the Lewises $10,000 ahead if she works.
[/i]
“Don’t think the American public is stupid,” says Cheryl Morse, a tax practitioner in eastern Massachusetts with both middle- income and affluent clients. “People call me and say, ‘What’s the most I can earn before I lose the earned income tax credit?’ [They] may not understand marginal rates, but they’re shocked when they lose the college or child credits. You hear all the time, ‘The harder I work, the more they take away from me.’”[/quote]
This is what I’ve thought a lot about. Really, I’m in one of those income brackets that are taxed absurdly given the cost of living in this state. Also, when Obamacare becomes a reality, I’ll be thrown in jail for not purchasing health care b/c I make too much money to receive free government care.
I’m better off moving to another state with a lower cost of living and working for less. Or, I’m better off living in this state and working for less while living more frugally.
It makes zero sense to work just so it can be taken away and given to someone else. Wages are going down anyway in this deflationary cycle.