End entitlement mind-set

  • Follow Letters

The biggest question in the debate on the domestic economy is one the president must be forced to answer, and that is: What is his definition of the “fair share” that the “rich” must pay, since he is insisting the current system is grossly unfair?

To ensure the electorate understands the current situation, the following facts are provided:

• The top 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers pay 37 percent of all taxes paid in this country.

• The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay 70 percent.

• The top 50 percent of taxpayers pay 98 percent.

• The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers pay 2 percent.

With the above, the president is adding over $1 trillion a year to our deficit. So what is his answer for the future? Not cutting expenditures, but raising even more taxes on the “rich.” His proposed tax increases for next year include:

• raising the top tax rates for the “rich” from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent;

• raising the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 23.8 percent;

• raising the dividend tax from 15 percent to 43.3 percent;

• considering raising the “death tax” from 35 percent on estates greater than $5 million to 55 percent on estates greater than $1 million.

It is time to say “no” to this tax-and-spend and “fairness” theory. We need to end the entitlement mind-set that controls the “bottom 52” percent. Government and government spending did not make this country great – we the people did!

Comments (45) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
OpenCurtain
10049
Points
OpenCurtain 10/09/12 - 10:13 am
5
2
Great example using age 15 to 65 numbers

Sorry the wage earner number starting at 15 is one of the misleading numbers I just commented about.

To me a wage earner is more like 21 to 55 and someone that cares for themselves. Not some kid working less than 24 hours a week; after school, mixing up orders at Mickey D's, to buy a new Smart phone, earn some date money, or to purchase a new Xbox Game.

So what are the unskewed Adult numbers 21 to 55?

A lot different I'd bet. Because 21 to 55 is the typical wage earning age group in the USA, not 15 to 65.

See anyone can play with numbers, by just a making a subtle change in the age groups to meet their needs.

Conservative Man
5578
Points
Conservative Man 10/09/12 - 12:33 pm
4
1
I'm not gonna cite numbers......

.....everyone on BOTH sides of the argument have already done that.

My point is to remind the "wealth coveters" (sound better now?), that the more that we insist that the wealthy continue to subsidize the poor...the less there will BE of wealthy people and the MORE of poor we will get...

When you subsidize poor behavior you get more of it.Is this what you lefties want? ....Really??

It's always seemed to me that in order to maintain power the left has had to create a permanent underclass which continues to vote for those who will keep them poor, stupid, and beholden to Senator X, or President Y, just to keep a check rolling in....

One day we will reach the point where the goose will just decide to stop laying golden eggs ...then what?.Hmmmm??

burninater
9941
Points
burninater 10/09/12 - 12:48 pm
4
2
I can't help but think that

I can't help but think that the people obsessed with this "wealth envy" nonsense just haven't looked at the numbers. Please look at how wealth is taxed again in my first post. We have a tax system that is almost perfectly flat, where taxation percentages almost exactly match wealth percentages.

Pointing out that the top 1% is fairly taxed, and the bottom 50% is fairly taxed, and the 49% in between is fairly taxed, is not "wealth envy". It's pointing out a simple fact. It doesn't matter how much people try to repeat a lie like "wealth envy" either, it doesn't change a simple fact. Is "wealth envy" name-calling just a way to try to make oneself feel better for ignoring facts? Or is it just an attempt to try to shame other people that DO pay attention to facts instead if propaganda? I don't really understand it, but that doesn't make it any less sickening.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 10/09/12 - 12:51 pm
5
1
burninator. What term would

burninator. What term would you use to describe those who want to raise taxes on the wealthy simply because they think they can afford it....even if as you say, it is already flat?

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 10/09/12 - 12:53 pm
6
1
How is someone receiving

How is someone receiving welfare, food stamps, and lives in section 8 housing, who pays ZERO tax being taxed fairly?

burninater
9941
Points
burninater 10/09/12 - 01:04 pm
2
3
Angie, 1) I would call them

Angie, 1) I would call them somebody interested in a progressive tax code. You know, like the Republican party prior to 2003.

2) "How is someone receiving welfare, food stamps, and lives in section 8 housing, who pays ZERO tax being taxed fairly?"

Well, because .... THEY DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY.

Is that the plan? America just isn't taxing the people with no money enough? Is that from the "make wars free by keeping them out of the budget" school of fiscal ingenuity?

Uh-oh, I must have accountant envy now.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 10/09/12 - 01:21 pm
6
1
"Is that the plan? America

"Is that the plan? America just isn't taxing the people with no money enough?"

No one said that....but you said everyone was taxed fairly. To do nothing but receive from the system and contribute NOTHING is far from fair. Unless by fair you mean "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 10/09/12 - 01:10 pm
6
3
Why do they have no money?

Why do they have no money? Because the majority of them WON'T work....not can't work, but won't.

Evil Regal
85
Points
Evil Regal 10/09/12 - 01:17 pm
0
1
Was driving home yesterday
Unpublished

Was driving home yesterday and was getting a lot of static on the stations I normally listen to so I decided to turn on some talk radio. Being Georgia there is pretty much only one kind of talk radio, that being conservative culture warrior radio.

One of the people on the show was talking about how this generation, the youth, are entirely different from our parents' generation in that we are all of the entitlement mindset, that we expect the government to do everything for us.

Excuse me, let's talk about all of these unsustainable programs that are propping a lot of our parents' rears up right now in the way of medicare, social security and a myriad of other programs that would be nothing right now if not for the taxes being pulled from our generation.

I don't know if we are the entitlement generation, but if we are, we didn't hold the title first and I'm pretty sure our parents and grand parents still have it.

burninater
9941
Points
burninater 10/09/12 - 01:26 pm
2
3
Angie, looking at the facts,

Angie, looking at the facts, rather than the propaganda, I respectfully -- but STRONGLY -- disagree.

"In 2010, 91 percent of the benefits provided through entitlement programs went to people who were elderly (65 or older), disabled (receiving Social Security disability benefits, SSI disability benefits, or Medicare on the basis of a disability — all three programs use essentially the same disability standard, which limits eligibility to people with medically certified disabilities that leave them substantially unable to work), or members of a household in which an individual worked at least 1,000 hours during the year.  As noted, the 91 percent figure is unchanged if one includes veterans’ and federal retirement programs.
This analysis defines working households as those in which someone has worked at least 1,000 hours a year.  This is a conservative definition.  If two household members work more than 1,000 hours between them but no single individual works at least 1,000 hours, we do not classify the unit as a working household.

If we look only at means-tested entitlement and other mandatory programs — that is, programs limited to low-income people — the percentage of benefits going to the elderly, the disabled, or working households remains high at 83 percent, a robust percentage for programs that are limited to people with low incomes.  This high percentage reflects policy changes in recent decades that have substantially restricted benefits for poor people who lack earnings (other than the elderly and disabled), while increasing assistance for low-income working families with children, especially in the form of tax credits.  The 83 percent figure edges down to 82 percent if low-income housing programs, WIC, and LIHEAP are included.

The data contradict beliefs that entitlements take heavily from the middle class to give to people at the bottom or that they shower benefits on the very wealthy.  The middle 60 percent of the population receives close to 60 percent of the benefits.  The top 5 percent of the population receives about 3 percent of the benefits. "

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 10/09/12 - 01:33 pm
6
1
65 and older.....you are

65 and older.....you are talking about actual EARNED entitlements such as SS and Medicare. BIG difference. I'm speaking of those who receive benifits and paid NOTHING. How are they taxed fairly?

burninater
9941
Points
burninater 10/09/12 - 01:34 pm
2
4
Help me understand though --

Help me understand though -- is that "wealth envy"? Feeling that the elderly and disabled that "WON'T" work .... maybe can't or shouldn't be working, and that a nation of plenty can probably afford to provide them with a minimum of care?

I'm not saying that there aren't able-bodied people who refuse to work, but you're being sold a false reality, if you have been told that these constitute the majority of recipients of both entitlements and means-tested programs. They are exactly the opposite -- a slim minority.

And no amount of "wealth envy" name calling can change the facts, no matter how many people are encouraged to behave that way by the people selling them the false reality.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 10/09/12 - 01:38 pm
5
1
Again...big difference

Again...big difference between earned and un-earned benifits. Medicare and SS are paid for by the receipients. Welfare and medicaid are NOT.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 10/09/12 - 01:39 pm
4
0
I have no beef with people

I have no beef with people receiving the benifits that they paid into.

burninater
9941
Points
burninater 10/09/12 - 01:45 pm
2
4
65 and older.....you are

65 and older.....you are talking about actual EARNED entitlements such as SS and Medicare. BIG difference. I'm speaking of those who receive benifits and paid NOTHING. How are they taxed fairly?
------
Angie, please read the whole post. Better yet, go to the primary source. Examine the data. Look at the methods. Go beyond the talking heads. Even for means-tested programs, the supermajority of recipients are elderly, disabled, or WORKING HOUSEHOLDS. This majority of working-age people that refuse to work and leach off the rest of us? THEY ARE A MYTH. A well-calculated, propagandist MYTH. How can I say that? Because I've looked at the facts instead of listening to the rhetoric.

I have provided you with some facts, including their sources, so you can personally check their methodology. The ball is now in your court. You can understand the America that exists factually, or the America that has been created by those for whom slurs like "wealth envy" is considered more useful than fact. I don't tell you what conclusions to come to, or what politics to endorse. I merely recommend you begin not with rhetoric, but with fact.

Good day to you.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 10/09/12 - 01:53 pm
4
2
Wealth envy is a very real

Wealth envy is a very real thing, not a slur. Pretending it doesn't exist seems to make some feel better.

http://frugaldad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/therich101209.jpg

http://images.soulpancake.s3.amazonaws.com/875452911IMG5UCbua_thumb.jpg

burninater
9941
Points
burninater 10/09/12 - 01:58 pm
2
4
Angie, when something like

Angie, when something like "wealth envy" is used consistently to attack the individual making the argument, rather than providing actual facts to rebut an opposing argument, or providing actual facts to support one's argument, it kinda sorta turns into a slur.

Words are how we use them.

F4therTime
4656
Points
F4therTime 10/09/12 - 01:57 pm
6
2
Funny..
Unpublished

When I ride by the projects I see very few elderly and disabled. Unless it's a disability to hold a 40 in a brown paper bag...

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 10/09/12 - 02:04 pm
6
2
When someone disregards the

When someone disregards the term wealth envy every time they see it because they don't want to belive it exists, I wonder what you would call that?

Words are how you ignore them.

soapy_725
44121
Points
soapy_725 10/09/12 - 04:29 pm
0
0
Angie, the state creates the boogeyman.
Unpublished

You are right. The state lumped those who EARNED benefits from contributions to society and themselves (SS Retirement, Medicare) with those who receive welfare, SSI, TANF, Section 8, EBT, WIC, because they never contributed to society.

Welfare and Public Assistance were demeaning terms. These were traumatic, hateful words. Hateful to the ungrateful. So we needed a "new catch phrase. Entitlement became the boogeyman. The demonized villain. The punching bag. The sound bite. The all inclusive term for all who receive any kind of money from the state. Even if it is THEIR MONEY being returned.

Another sword in the state bag of tools to enslave by divide and conquer. Tools as old as mankind and rulers.

POTUS Carter was the Puppet who gave us this all inclusive legislation where he provided SS, SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, EBT, WIC, TANF, Earned Income Allowance for all peoples (not just citizens and contributors) into the fold of the nanny state.

We are continually amazed that the Southern Baptist Church in Plains GA had a Communist teaching Sunday School. And still do. He learned it from his mother and her friends at the local commune.

All are Entitled in the European Socialist State format.

burninater
9941
Points
burninater 10/09/12 - 04:28 pm
1
3
Angie, look at nofan's 10:45.

Angie, look at nofan's 10:45. S/he rebutted Techfan's argument by answering facts with facts, with no attempt to simply deal with an argument by attempting to shift attention to the arguers' mental state.

This is my point. My dismissal of "wealth envy" as a slur when it is only used as an ad hominem attack is not ignoring the existence of somebody's mental state. It is ignoring rhetoric that does nothing to address the actual issues, and ignores the underlying facts.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 10/10/12 - 06:13 am
2
1
When a person wants someone's

When a person wants someone's taxes to go up simply because they think they should pay more because they are rich, THAT is wealth envy....not a slur, not rhetoric. But if disagreeing with you is rhetoric, then so be it.

d1zmljqg
997
Points
d1zmljqg 10/10/12 - 08:44 am
1
0
OpenCurtain, you included

"So what are the unskewed Adult numbers 21 to 55?

A lot different I'd bet. Because 21 to 55 is the typical wage earning age group in the USA, not 15 to 65."

The link to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/perinc/new01_001.htm

provides detailed data within age groups, and the answer to your question is certainly available. Also, for example, since I worked up until age 65 and was very actively employed from age 55 to 65 I saw a lot of workers in this age group. The reference above lists 34,403,000 workers in that age group, which is ~16% of the 211,492,000 mentioned yesterday. Therefore, with my work experience and the given data I conclude the wage earners between ages 55-65 are a significant amount in the work force.

The link above does list 25,414,000 between ages 15-24, which is ~12% of the 211,492,000. Unfortunately, this range is between 15-14 and not 15-21 preventing a complete answer to your question above.
However, I think it would be conservatively safe to estimate 1/2 of the 25.414M would be less than 21, whereas, 1/2 would be between 21-24. The tables are very extensive parsing out salaries for ranges within age groups with salaries from $1 to over $100,000 per year.

The two links I have used are titled, "A joint effort between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau." I have tried to relate facts as given in the documents, and did not do as Mark Twain suggest in one of his famous quotes.

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs