COMMENT 279472P
|
2012-05-14 08:40 AM |
|
Bravo 811P!! I've been trying to tell people this for years. Love the analogy.
|
| |
COMMENT 279264P
|
2012-05-12 04:40 PM |
|
BTW 996-great advice about shouldering your share with regard to taxes. Please consider shouldering your share with regard to this web site and become a subscriber.
|
| |
COMMENT 279264P
|
2012-05-11 11:52 PM |
|
996-here's what got me thinking about this. I hear the President complaining that his opponent has made more income but is paying less income tax percentage wise than he is. Well, I do the the math and guess what? Eventhought my income is a mere fraction of the President's income, I'm paying a higher percentage in income tax than he is. And the funny thing is he isn't being taxed on the benefits like the rest of us. Anyway, I start thinking that 's not fair. Especially since the President is complaining that it isn't fair that his opponent is psying less taxes percentage wise. So that is where I came upon the conclusion that a flat tax was the only fair tax.
|
| |
COMMENT 279012
|
2012-05-11 03:59 PM |
|
In theory, a progressive tax rate is fairer because as you go up the income ladder you can afford to pay more than someone who is just barely eating. But we've got some extremely wealthy people and corporations paying little or no taxes. That's what seems unfair to me.
|
| |
COMMENT 278996
|
2012-05-11 03:31 PM |
|
811p - you get paid more, you take home more. You pay more taxes, sure, but you still take home more. Not only that but your tax rate doesn't increase until you have taken home more. That is what makes the system progressive. This is a great country. Step up and shoulder your share... regardless of who you see as not doing so (or deserving).
|
| |
COMMENT 279264P
|
2012-05-11 03:13 PM |
|
SY-you crack me up. Your argument boils down to this: taxes are regressive on the "poor" but progressive on anyone else but the "poor". Poor is in quotes because there are so many definitions of poor. As to fairness, what is fair about this scenaro? I'm the working stiff that makes $30,000 a year at my job. Hey, I 'm not happy with that so I go out and get a second job. My income is now $50,000 a year. But now there is a bigger tax bite out of my paycheck. I am working more (and forgoing alot to do that) and I am taking home less. That really doesn't strike me as fair. I would hope that in this situation you would agree that the "progressive" tax rates are actually regressive.
|
| |
COMMENT 278985
|
2012-05-11 02:59 PM |
|
@984 Because that is obviously representative of everyone who makes use of the program.
|
| |
COMMENT 278984
|
2012-05-11 02:52 PM |
|
I will NEVER understand why people who can least afford to care for a child, have the most children, and then rely upon the government to bail them out. I can't tell you how many "WIC" mothers I have seen drive away from the grocery store in a Cadillac Escalade. This is just plain wrong and needs to be fixed. [Yes, pun intended!]
|
| |
COMMENT 278977
|
2012-05-11 02:30 PM |
|
TRUTHTELLER: You're kidding, right? You must be! WIC can be used to purchase formula. WIC can be used to purchase food for a nursing mother to have enough nourishment so that she will be strong and healthy enough to be able to breastfeed. WIC can be used to feed other children in the family. WIC is used by many working poor people and their spouses, including many military families. And in case you haven't noticed the unemployment rate, how quickly do you expect economically disadvantaged new mothers to find a job? And do you really think we should let them and their children go hungry in the meantime? Besides, this is about price gouging, which is wrong and illegal. These stores raised the prices on these items because they know that WIC covers them, but it means they raised the prices for everyone who shops at their store, which probably also includes many poor people and others who don't get WIC but can't necessarily comparison shop.
|
| |
COMMENT 278949
|
2012-05-11 11:58 AM |
|
@811P You're right, I did misread the article regarding where the cost/price gouging was occurring. That being said... A flat tax is not fair. If you charge someone who makes $30,000 a year a 10% flat tax, that $3,000 hit has a much greater effect on their quality of life than if you charge someone who makes $300,000 a year a 10% flat tax. How is that "fair"? Flat taxes are actually highly regressive on lower income families unless your marginal tax rate is incredibly low, in which case it's just a thinly veiled way to reduce government funding and thus cut spending.
|
| |
COMMENT 279264P
|
2012-05-11 11:48 AM |
|
SY-the store is not charging the poor more. The store is charging the government more. That is why the state is investigating. This story highlights the hypocrisy of our government. Our government cries bloody murder when a store charges it a different price than other customers for the same products. Yet, the "progressive" income tax rate does the same thing. Taxpayers are charged different rates depending on how much income they make. Image if everyone in the line at the grocery store was charged a different price for a carton of milk depending on their income. Most people would say this is unethical and unfair. Yet, the goverment does the same thing by charging a different tax rate to different people based on their income. This situation, when discussed by politicians is called "fairness". The only fair tax scheme is a flat tax without any deductions. The tax could be a income tax or a consumption tax, but to be fair, it must be one rate for all.
|
| |
COMMENT 278937
|
2012-05-11 11:37 AM |
|
i agree with every comment on here
|
| |
COMMENT 278920
|
2012-05-11 10:54 AM |
|
Yeah right, they care about the taxpayer. If they cared about the taxpayer there would be way less people on WIC benefits since many are playing the system. Plus, if you are low to no income, why why why are you having babies??????
|
| |
COMMENT 278844
|
2012-05-11 08:43 AM |
|
823 I'm going to agree with you there. I see many "working poor" or "non-working poor" women and men, using the system of WIC and Section 8, but then driving around in brand new Expeditions, shopping at the malls, using the latest Apple products, etc. How is this not caught? Who's overseeing the dispersement of funds and saying "It appears you just purchased a new car. You can clearly afford cereal on your own and to pay rent. Assistance denied."
My mother raised me alone, worked two jobs, put herself through college and graduated Cum Laude, was not getting child support, and we NEVER used welfare or food stamps. The system of assistance is corrupt and abused and needs to change!
|
| |
COMMENT 278837
|
2012-05-11 08:21 AM |
|
If you cant afford baby formula.... your child should be taken away and given to a family that can. We used to call this child abuse.
|
| |
COMMENT 278823
|
2012-05-11 06:52 AM |
|
WIC = Women and Infant Children. California does not check citizenship before conferring WIC benefits. I used to stand in line in Scolari's and watch a slew of non-English speaking women, accompanied by men, check out with WIC vouchers, pay for their non-WIC items separately, and then flip out cell phones and get a late model car to go home. I'm barely scraping by, but would not qualify for WIC.
Grrrrrrr.
|
| |
PETER
|
2012-05-11 06:36 AM |
|
What does WIC stand for?
|
| |
COMMENT 278816P
|
2012-05-11 01:21 AM |
|
TRUTHTELER, WIC mothers and children are low income, not necessarily no income. Have you never heard of the working poor?
|
| |
COMMENT 278815
|
2012-05-10 11:35 PM |
|
By the time the infant and/or child is ready to eat cereal and cheese, drink apple juice and cows' milk, and enjoy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, shouldn't the parents of the infants and/or children be off to work to support their kids? Just sayin',,,,,,,,
|
| |
COMMENT 278813
|
2012-05-10 11:10 PM |
|
811P Wait, are you seriously comparing a market charging poor/low income mothers more money for the same goods to a government instituting a progressive income tax?
|
| |
COMMENT 279264P
|
2012-05-10 10:49 PM |
|
Funny thing is that I was just talking to my daughter about how it would be wrong for a store to charge people different prices depending on what your income is. But this is exactly what the government does with income taxes-if you make more you are charged at a higher rate. Tax gouging depending on your income.
|
| |
