Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Science says that even rats show compassion and share their wealth. Not all people are able to do the same.

Quote from: Colonel Rebel

But SanguineMoon does a a point I think you should consider; a relative of mine is in terrible shape. She has a hereditary back disease that has stripped her ability to do consistent work/stand for long periods of time. As such, she is no longer able to work, and must rely on her husband. Her husband is just a general laborer, and does work under the table.

She and he have reached a point of absolute emergency. He can barely afford half of her medication, can barely afford gas for his truck, and they rely on meals in the instances you mention (local Baptist church in their town, mainly, although to @Belfrager's church's credit, a Catholic Church also has pitched into help. ), but they are one of many ppl doing so in that poverty-stricken Delta town. As such, their rations are barely enough for more than 3 days.

The question she now faces is what is more important? Deal with going hungry or paying for her meds?

I have encouraged her to try for food stamps **, as they are exactly for the instance I have just illustrated. If she did so, she could focus on paying for ALL of her meds, and possibly saving up cash for a surgery for her debilitating disease.

While your relatives' problem is compelling, I've read 'Coonys post more than a couple of times, & respectfully I see no point he attempts to make that relates specifically to the type of problem you posted.

That said, just because I don't believe in the Food Stamp Program -- that the Federal Government so loosely implements --  won't make it go away any time soon, & if that is the only way that your relatives can survive is taking advantage of this program, then that's what they should do until they can find a privately funded alternative. 

The day that the present Food Stamp Program is abolished, & replaced with a program that is specifically for those in your relatives situation -- need based, & not for the general public solely based on income levels -- I'd look at such a program as much more favorable.

In principal, could you support something like that?  Needs based, as opposed to a fraud riddled, solely means tested -- income based?

BTW .... This is actually off topic, for it has nothing to do with the justification of Wealth Redistribution.

1. But it is wealth redistribution. The Food Stamps program takes our tax dollars and loads them onto an EBT card for those deemed to qualify for said program.

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on 2014-03-29, 12:24:13

1. But it is wealth redistribution. The Food Stamps program takes our tax dollars and loads them onto an EBT card for those deemed to qualify for said program.

But, is that legitimate justification for taking wealth & redistributing it to those that 'can' see clear to make do without....read here

Qualification by ever changing political motivations does not, IMHO, justify that.

Do you think otherwise?

I think that any "needs-based" scheme would spawn a huge bureaucracy on needs-assessors, slavering to rip off the system

In your country the top pays less a percentage in tax and in mine the top earners pay 25% of taxes and I think that is right.

The Federal Income tax rates I provided above are 100% correct.

The effective rates of tax one ends up paying varies upon the mountains of tax code & how they are applied to one's individual tax return.

Now, how the tax laws are written, & how deductions are applied based on those laws, the end rate of tax paid can vary.

Unless you're naive enough to believe that those Federal Tax Rates are 'flat tax' rates,  you would know as we all do that the end rate you actually pay is dependent upon your deductions.

This is common knowledge known world wide, so your boogy-man tax rant is nothing more than a charade on your part in a vain attempt to discredit, which won't work -- & nobody is stupid enough to take you seriously.     

Last year President Obama made $608,611. He paid $112,214 in Federal Income tax.  He is in the 39.6% tax bracket, but because of his numerous legal deductions his Federal Tax Rate was effectively lowered to 18.4%.

Now, not knowing if he had any State, or Local Income Tax, Capitol Gains Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax, etc,,etc,,etc to add to that Federal Tax, I would have to believe his end overall tax paid was higher than that 18.4% figure.

Now, are you going to address this issue -- can you support the present day redistribution processes -- without resorting to the demonisation of the 'rich', or passing back-handed negative connotation toward successful higher income earners in today's society?

So, are you going to continue throwing up bogus class-envy smokescreens, or are you going to legitimately attempt to  justify taking wealth involuntarily from those that have earned wealth, to redistribute that wealth to people who have not earned it,  are not truly needy, & are far from being destitute?

The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2010, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is 15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%.

Emmanuel Macron a remis mercredi 13 mars au soir la grand-croix de la Légion d’honneur au PDG du géant français du luxe LVMH, Bernard Arnault. [...] Aux manettes du leader mondial du luxe, M. Arnault est aujourd’hui l’homme le plus riche du monde, avec un patrimoine estimé à 230 milliards de dollars, devant Elon Musk et ses 210 milliards de dollars, selon le classement Forbes. Bernard Arnault qui est entré dernièrement en négociations exclusives avec le groupe Lagardère, passé en novembre 2023 dans le giron de Vincent Bolloré, pour racheter l’hebdomadaire Paris Match.