realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
I don't consider the government letting me keep more of my money as welfare.
Because it's not.
Welfare
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
I don't consider the government letting me keep more of my money as welfare.
Because it's not.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Just curious, by that rationale, where does the 'government' get it's money to fund all of the things you want it to do?
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
It forcably takes it from people.
And as I have stated on here many times, I want the government smaller, and doing a lot less than it does today.
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
Only if you itemized your deductions on the federal return schedule A the previous year. Had you taken the standard deduction then your state income tax return would not be taxable.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Who doesn't itemize their return?
If you own a home, you need to itemize to get the maximum return.
Unless you want to volunteer to give more of your hard earned money to an already too big government.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Agreed and from a purely free market perspective, it can be seen as a market intervention which skews the market place by using the State to create a false monopoly as opposed to one that naturally arises from product or service supremacy that benefits the consume of. Such actions by the State on behalf of market actors shift the true costs away from the actual consumers of said service or product and place it on the back of the larger collective.
In the case of employer healthcare tax deduction, American Enterprise Institute Resident Fellow Tom Miller in a piece for National Review Online argued the 1940's IRS ruling that employer provided health beenies were not taxable income, later codified in the 1954' Tax Code skewed the health insurance marketplace which in one unintended consequence covered up the transparency of market pricing too the negative. Miller argues for the termination of the employer healthcare exemption (I agree) and I would also add in the real estate interest deduction which IMO helped to artificially inflate real estate prices. Even the marriage exemption which has helped to fuel the great marriage debate, (Marriage definition) may have never needed to be debated in the first place had it never existed, the tax exemption that is. Economic and State planners however understood the end product of marriage was more little taxpayers so like a good farmer, actions were taken to produce more yield.
Maybe the Matrix scenario isn't as far off the mark in fantasy as we think!
End the state privileges and the arguments disappear and then the debate comes down to just what we want gov't to do and what does that cost us. Many ills in society IMO are the effects from market interventions on behalf of others done so by the State.
I believe in zero costs but that's just me!
Continuing, Miller points out this effect (tax exemption) makes health insurance cost higher which affects the poor or low end of society's pay scale and it raises the true costs for all of us over time. If healthcare costs weren't ever increasing as they are even now thus raising employer costs for health beenies, there might be more money for wage increases which itself helps the working poor.
From this one could pose the question seems to me, does this insurance system (employer paid health insurance) create a kind of price floor support on behalf of ever rising healthcare costs (I think it does) which the uninsured who could on some level at one time pay out of pocket for some basic healthcare now are forced to either forego care or to access care where they can on the terms of others whatever that may be? Some of that might be forcing others to pay for them so to speak but not always.
The previous system prior to ACA was broken, badly broken as a matter of fact and its been broken for a very long time, very long. I would argue on some level it began with Abraham Flexner so when I say long time I mean long time. Question remains open if the recent fix just created another set of unintended consequences or not and the same forces who benefited previous will still benefit going forward to the harm for the rest of us. Even with ACA as noble as the intent might have been, the same market forces who've always benefited from market intervention will still do so thus I remain extremely skeptical long term.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Stated very jokingly:
"Come on Mudder Fvker, don't be trying to force on me when I'm too busy forcing on you!"
wkmac
Well-Known Member
raceanoncr
Well-Known Member
I don't anymore. Not enough deductions. No debts, no expenses, house is paid down enough, taxes ain't worth it. I get more outta my taxes, anymore, if I just take standard.
Yes, we have worked it up sideways, upside down, inside out...there just ain't no way, here anyway, to itemize.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Missouri Republicans To The Poor: No More Lobster Or Adult Films
Missouri State Representative Rick Brattin (R) has proposed a bill that seeks to limit what recipients of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) — commonly referred to as food stamps — are able to purchase with their benefits. House Bill 813 attempts to prohibit SNAP recipients from purchasing fish, steak, soda, cookies, chips and energy drinks.
An easy case could be made for prohibiting the purchase of such food items as cookies and chips — or junk food, in general — as those items provide very little actual nutrition, which is the whole purpose of the SNAP program. Nutrition experts have been exploring the possibility of removing such items from the approved list of what SNAP recipients can purchase for awhile.
The new bill doesn’t take just luxury items such as filet mignon and lobster off the menu for Missouri SNAP recipients — it eliminates such items as tuna fish, fish sticks, and cheaper cuts of beef, such as flank steak.
Republican legislators in Missouri, because alongside House Bill 813 is House Bill 977, sponsored by Rep. J. Eggleston (R), which, as the bill itself states, “adds pornography to the list of items that are prohibited from being purchased with TANF or SNAP benefits using an EBT card.”
Missouri State Representative Rick Brattin (R) has proposed a bill that seeks to limit what recipients of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) — commonly referred to as food stamps — are able to purchase with their benefits. House Bill 813 attempts to prohibit SNAP recipients from purchasing fish, steak, soda, cookies, chips and energy drinks.
An easy case could be made for prohibiting the purchase of such food items as cookies and chips — or junk food, in general — as those items provide very little actual nutrition, which is the whole purpose of the SNAP program. Nutrition experts have been exploring the possibility of removing such items from the approved list of what SNAP recipients can purchase for awhile.
The new bill doesn’t take just luxury items such as filet mignon and lobster off the menu for Missouri SNAP recipients — it eliminates such items as tuna fish, fish sticks, and cheaper cuts of beef, such as flank steak.
Republican legislators in Missouri, because alongside House Bill 813 is House Bill 977, sponsored by Rep. J. Eggleston (R), which, as the bill itself states, “adds pornography to the list of items that are prohibited from being purchased with TANF or SNAP benefits using an EBT card.”
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
This may surprise you but the busiest non-holiday sales days at Gamestop are when the welfare recipients get their checks.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
No fish for food stamp recipients?
Now this is taking the "teach a man to fish" mantra a little too literally.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
You must mean when their EBT cards get reloaded .
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Thats quite a big piece of the tax pie you are talking about eliminating.
baklava
I don’t work at UPS anymore.
Ok. What do we do?
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Stop sucking the government dry for starters. A fairly recent study determined that the "bottom" 60% AS A GROUP paid -9.1% in taxes in 2010. When I said AS A GROUP I mean that it doesn't apply to each and every person on the middle/lower class. The rich are not the problem by a long shot when it comes to taxes. There is simply too many Americans taking out more than they put in. If you leave the politics and opinion out of it and only look at it like one of those annoying, but simple, word problems we all had in math class it's easy to see what the real problem is. Class warfare isn't the answer. Cutting off the gravy train and money printing machines is.
im not talking about eliminating it. but i agree it is a big piece of the tax pie, and yet its interesting when you hear talk about taxes its framed as if we all pay the same to make taxes sound like a bad thing.
baklava
I don’t work at UPS anymore.
Well I, was asking rickyb what he had in mind but yeah I agree with you about the welfare leeches. Incredible that people are paid to be lazy, indefinitely.
Similar threads
