Net beneficiaries of the US tax system

[Lootifer]

niggardly is a genuine word. he did use it in the wrong context though, he meant niggly

Awful lot of cover being provided for Mrs. I know if I said it, you would be all "I GOT HIM! I GOT HIM!"

I'm sure there is no connection between the word on the subject of welfare.

Lootifer, have you ever made a post about 'racist code'? Like, say, the whole 'food stamp president' thing? Like I always have said and continues to be played out, being on the Left means a different set of rules and never having to say sorry.

Nah I use the word niggly all the time, seriously, if you do as much sport as I do you have a lot of niggles (minor injuries).

But anyway dude, come on, be the bigger man here and don't take exception to it: If he was using it genuinely then you just sound silly, and if he did use it to bait/mock you then just ignore it and move on, by responding you are satisfying his "troll" or whatever.

[mrswdk]

Why not address one of my questions for once?

What should America's unemployed be doing in order to realise financial independence*?

Roughly how much of America's welfare budget is being spent on luxury purchases by lazy scroungers?


*to the extent that their monetary income is not being subsidised.

[Phatscotty]

niggardly is a genuine word. he did use it in the wrong context though, he meant niggly

Awful lot of cover being provided for Mrs. I know if I said it, you would be all "I GOT HIM! I GOT HIM!"

I'm sure there is no connection between the word on the subject of welfare.

Lootifer, have you ever made a post about 'racist code'? Like, say, the whole 'food stamp president' thing? Like I always have said and continues to be played out, being on the Left means a different set of rules and never having to say sorry.

Nah I use the word niggly all the time, seriously, if you do as much sport as I do you have a lot of niggles (minor injuries).

But anyway dude, come on, be the bigger man here and don't take exception to it: If he was using it genuinely then you just sound silly, and if he did use it to bait/mock you then just ignore it and move on, by responding you are satisfying his "troll" or whatever.

I am the bigger man, I'm just not a complete moron who falls for this kind of BS. Forgive me for being entertained the lengths you are going to cover for him. I find it even more so since you treated me the complete opposite, and tried to get me banned by taking something far less obvious and twisting it out of context. I think you even publicly posted something like "I'm almost got you banned for this". I mean, how can you even possibly vouch for it being genuine? Like you know? Oh really, in a discussion about welfare, you can conclude using the N word was unintentional, and you even find a substitute word for him, and even start making up a BS story about how you use some word all the time (NEVER here though in all your years....mm hmmm mm hmmm). That was a very gentle warning a couple days ago too about all the idiot talk being thrown around, maybe it was Mets, either way you 2 are both constantly covering for him, even aruging counter to previous statement yall made, just to save him from getting intellectually slammed. Are all you guys in the same hidden forum group or something?

Pretty sure you are the silly sounding one here. You are bending over backwards to make the point for all to see that using the N word is okay.

[Lootifer]

being on the Left means a different set of rules and never having to say sorry.

Also this is patently untrue. Once again you are seeing what you want to see on the other side of the fence (well as far as how you view the left in this forum, I would never suggest I can make an honest assessment of your day to day landscape, as you rightly point out I am not American, nor do I live in America). But lets move this dribble forward a little bit, i dont really care for your youtubes of people videotaping the truly stupid amongst us (an aside: how representative of the american population are those videos showing americans who know nothing about geography and other simple questions? Not very right?)

- Yes there are welfare abusers (though when I googled it I only got information on two things, articles related to welfare fraud - which is not what you are talking about and has been shown to be ~1-5% depending on the study - and much of the conservative material you tend to post)
- Yes there are also genuine users of welfare for whatever reason have ended up at the bottom of the heap, and use welfare to get from way day to the next and sometimes get back on their feet

- No, no one believes welfare abusers should be allowed to extort the government
- Many also dont believe we should also, as a society, treat the bottom of the heap like rubbish, and maybe give them a helping hand to get back on their feet

Now before BBS comes in and tells me how shit government sponsored welfare is and launches into another free market rant ima paint a strawman:

-> Government welfare is not ideal, sometimes it gets abused and provides the wrong incentive
-> Government welfare is pretty good as it provides a safety net for those who have made poor decisions or one of the other endless reasons one might have to find oneself at the bottom of the heap

Both of these are facts

Now the question is: How much of the first are you willing to put up with in order to provide the second? None? Then you may as well leave this thread now. You have made your point and you can vote how you like, but personally I dont want to have to listen to any more of your information.

Its not possible to provide a perfect welfare system (private or otherwise), so stating you arent willing to put up with any weaknesses of a welfare program means you dont care and theres no point in discussion.

If you say as little as possible then maybe we can move away from the shitty youtubes and have a proper discussion on how one might design a good welfare (call it safety net if it makes you feel better) system.

[Phatscotty]

Why not address one of my questions for once?

What should America's unemployed be doing in order to realise financial independence*?

Roughly how much of America's welfare budget is being spent on luxury purchases by lazy scroungers?


*to the extent that their monetary income is not being subsidised.

I've addressed all your questions, I've even repeated my answers to your questions more than once. Then you say 'Why not address one of my questions for once?' it shows me I am wasting my time, and tells me everything I need to know about you and what you are trying to do.

[Lootifer]

Carter said that he has played with niggles all year, noting his Achilles problem had lingered through the Test wins over Japan and France before reaching an inevitable conclusion in London.

http://www.espnscrum.com/newzealand/rug ... 06377.html

Usain Bolt out of Invitational with hamstring niggle

http://www.caribbean360.com/index.php/s ... z2kzJWzyoP

Despite niggling concerns over performance-enhancing drugs and player safety, the NFL's foreign excursions come from a position of strength.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/s ... pittsburgh

I’m wary by nature, and that wariness extends in many directions and includes such things as auctions. In that niggling spirit I asked Nelles what connection, if any, aside from having had an agreeable dinner with Holyfield, he had to boxing.

http://www.boxing.com/property_from_the ... field.html

Im pretty sure you can actually google "<famous athlete>, niggle" and you will find at least one article.

[Phatscotty]

Carter said that he has played with niggles all year, noting his Achilles problem had lingered through the Test wins over Japan and France before reaching an inevitable conclusion in London.

http://www.espnscrum.com/newzealand/rug ... 06377.html

Usain Bolt out of Invitational with hamstring niggle

http://www.caribbean360.com/index.php/s ... z2kzJWzyoP

Despite niggling concerns over performance-enhancing drugs and player safety, the NFL's foreign excursions come from a position of strength.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/s ... pittsburgh

I’m wary by nature, and that wariness extends in many directions and includes such things as auctions. In that niggling spirit I asked Nelles what connection, if any, aside from having had an agreeable dinner with Holyfield, he had to boxing.

http://www.boxing.com/property_from_the ... field.html

Im pretty sure you can actually google "<famous athlete>, niggle" and you will find at least one article.

That's great, but you are defending him about a word that he did not even use. This is getting weird

[Lootifer]

Eh on re-read, maybe you are right, but I presumed from skimming that he meant niggly. Niggardly means cheap (or penny pincher).

If that was a bait mrswdk, stop it please.

[mrswdk]

Niggardly is a perfectly normal word (although I apparently should have said 'niggly' instead). If Scotty wants to turn this discussion into Racial Profiling for Dummies then that's his deal, but I was simply making the point that I think the American government is not very generous with its welfare provision.

Phats, you have not addressed the questions in my last post.

[Lootifer]

Bugger this, im going to bed. Ive made my one rational post, itll all be downhill from here for me...

[Metsfanmax]

Niggardly is a perfectly normal word (although I apparently should have said 'niggly' instead). If Scotty wants to turn this discussion into Racial Profiling for Dummies then that's his deal, but I was simply making the point that I think the American government is not very generous with its welfare provision.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/lo ... 020499.htm

Don't worry, Phatscotty isn't the only one who fails to grasp the meaning of words that are in the dictionary. "Niggardly" was perfectly correct in context.

[thegreekdog]

I have trouble believing that the net beneficiaries of the U.S. tax system are the poor. I'll need to do some more analysis.

[BigBallinStalin]

Certainly not any of this 'oh, we'll just make a cut here in a program that doesn't work and put the money into a program that Mets says works because a 'non-partisan' policy group who's board is full of Socialist and Progressives said it works" well that's what they always say Mets. And I know you do not see what I am talking about, and I know I'm not going to persuade you, and I know that no matter what you won't change your mind, and that no matter what whatever position you support you can find a graph showing what you want it to show, and whatever you oppose you can show a chart showing what you want it to show, and that you are one of the least objective posters here.

I was going to respond, but I'm done with you now.

That's fine, it's not like you don't know where I stand on redistribution of wealth, welfare, taxation, trust in government, socialism. Everything you are saying here has been said about every other program.

The reason I'm done with you is precisely because I know all too well where you stand on these issues. That's because you use rhetoric instead of analysis. If every response to a government policy is 'we need to spend less money and we can't trust the government' then there is literally no reason to talk to you because you don't enrich the conversation. I'll speak to you again when (if) this changes.

He won't. Don't worry.

[BigBallinStalin]

[
Now before BBS comes in and tells me how shit government sponsored welfare is and launches into another free market rant ima paint a strawman:

-> Government welfare is not ideal, sometimes it gets abused and provides the wrong incentive
-> Government welfare is pretty good as it provides a safety net for those who have made poor decisions or one of the other endless reasons one might have to find oneself at the bottom of the heap

Both of these are facts

Now the question is: How much of the first are you willing to put up with in order to provide the second? None? Then you may as well leave this thread now. You have made your point and you can vote how you like, but personally I dont want to have to listen to any more of your information.

Its not possible to provide a perfect welfare system (private or otherwise), so stating you arent willing to put up with any weaknesses of a welfare program means you dont care and theres no point in discussion.

If you say as little as possible then maybe we can move away from the shitty youtubes and have a proper discussion on how one might design a good welfare (call it safety net if it makes you feel better) system.

Making a tradeoff between 1 and 2 is a good way to frame it, but the voters don't make that decision. Politicians do--but they make it for different reasons, which is one of the problems.

Random fact: Based (IIRC) on 1990s data, if you took all the welfare spending and evenly distributed it among the 'poor' (whoever currently receives it which includes middle-class), then each person gets $36,000. If you converted all welfare spending into an EIC or NIT (negative income tax), then we'd probably get better results (it's hard to say).

RE: the underlined, it's unknown. I haven't seen convincing evidence for either side (T or F).

[Dukasaur]

I have trouble believing that the net beneficiaries of the U.S. tax system are the poor. I'll need to do some more analysis.

I can't address the issue of poor people specifically, but I do remember studies showing that the poorest neighborhoods had a net outflow of tax dollars. In other words, even though a substantial percentage of the people in those places were collecting welfare and other subsidies, those subsidies were less than the taxes paid by those people and their employed neighbours.

[Phatscotty]

Certainly not any of this 'oh, we'll just make a cut here in a program that doesn't work and put the money into a program that Mets says works because a 'non-partisan' policy group who's board is full of Socialist and Progressives said it works" well that's what they always say Mets. And I know you do not see what I am talking about, and I know I'm not going to persuade you, and I know that no matter what you won't change your mind, and that no matter what whatever position you support you can find a graph showing what you want it to show, and whatever you oppose you can show a chart showing what you want it to show, and that you are one of the least objective posters here.

I was going to respond, but I'm done with you now.

That's fine, it's not like you don't know where I stand on redistribution of wealth, welfare, taxation, trust in government, socialism. Everything you are saying here has been said about every other program.

The reason I'm done with you is precisely because I know all too well where you stand on these issues. That's because you use rhetoric instead of analysis. If every response to a government policy is 'we need to spend less money and we can't trust the government' then there is literally no reason to talk to you because you don't enrich the conversation. I'll speak to you again when (if) this changes.

He won't. Don't worry.

Will too

[thegreekdog]

I have trouble believing that the net beneficiaries of the U.S. tax system are the poor. I'll need to do some more analysis.

I can't address the issue of poor people specifically, but I do remember studies showing that the poorest neighborhoods had a net outflow of tax dollars. In other words, even though a substantial percentage of the people in those places were collecting welfare and other subsidies, those subsidies were less than the taxes paid by those people and their employed neighbours.

I think it depends on how one defines "tax welfare." If we're just speaking on an individual basis, I think it's safe to say that the poor benefit from our current tax system the most. But I think it is wise to keep in mind corporate (and personal) deductions and tax credits that benefit the rich (directly or indirectly). I think it's hard to figure that out, especially given the ostensible reason for deductions and tax credits (which is, ultimately, to "create jobs").

[Metsfanmax]

I have trouble believing that the net beneficiaries of the U.S. tax system are the poor. I'll need to do some more analysis.

I can't address the issue of poor people specifically, but I do remember studies showing that the poorest neighborhoods had a net outflow of tax dollars. In other words, even though a substantial percentage of the people in those places were collecting welfare and other subsidies, those subsidies were less than the taxes paid by those people and their employed neighbours.

I think it depends on how one defines "tax welfare." If we're just speaking on an individual basis, I think it's safe to say that the poor benefit from our current tax system the most. But I think it is wise to keep in mind corporate (and personal) deductions and tax credits that benefit the rich (directly or indirectly). I think it's hard to figure that out, especially given the ostensible reason for deductions and tax credits (which is, ultimately, to "create jobs").

I'll give BBS one thing -- it's amazing how hard it is to answer a seemingly simple question like, do taxes make the poor better off?

[thegreekdog]

If making the poor better off means making sure they can get out of poverty and fend for themselves (i.e. "teach a man to fish"), I think the answer is that our current government system (whatever that may be) has not worked. More people receive government benefits now than ever before.

[_sabotage_]

If boot camps taught permaculture and a student loan could be exchanged for a10k land loan, then it might.

But then we lose a myriad of government control mechanisms and as such it is antithetical to the state.

[mrswdk]

More people receive government benefits now than ever before.

Because more people are unemployed now, which cannot be assumed to be the result of poor government policy.

[thegreekdog]

More people receive government benefits now than ever before.

Because more people are unemployed now, which cannot be assumed to be the result of poor government policy.

I disagree, but okay. Let's take a step back though. I think most people in this country would say that government should provide a safety net for people who are physically and mentally capable of working to support themselves, but who fall on bad times (definitions of "bad times" and "safety net" are open for discussion). In the 1990s, there was a shift (maybe) in the discussion where government officials said "You know what, we want to get people working, not living off the government their entire lives." Has that happened (ignoring unemployment compensation)? I would say no. Does that mean the policies failed? And if yes, do we need new policies?

I think we need new policies. My preference would be training programs.

[mrswdk]

So how does the US government create jobs for the 7% of the population who cannot find work?

[BigBallinStalin]

So how does the US government create jobs for the 7% of the population who cannot find work?

Does government have any public policies which place obstacles on job creation?

[mrswdk]

Do you think that full employment could be achieved simply by removing policies? Or that it can be achieved at all?