[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

Joe, I covered earlier that payroll taxes that go to systems like medicare and SS are not federal income taxes. The difference is that payroll taxes go to programs that have defined benefits for the individual paying in, as opposed to Federal income tax which is spent at the whim of the .gov. So you're down to the other 28%.And you can take out the characterization of the elderly in your 17% pie slice. My parents are 71 and 73, certainly elderly, and they pay a hell of a lot of income tax. So that pie slice should just be "poor". So the only "legit" slice of the 47% is the disabled one. And that includes such massive disabilities as allergies and bogus back injuries.

So we are in agreement that the "47% don't contribute" idea Mitt is pushing really isn't close to being true. When you factor in all the other taxes the majority of these people pay, they are productive members of society. And for the 10% or so of the elderly that no longer work, their going to get a pass because they did work when they were younger.

But I am not responsible for protecting them from the consequences of their bad decisions such as dropping out of school, doing drugs, or having a kid at 12. Far more people out there that are disadvantaged through their own choices than not. And you can sacrifice quality for cost, I.e. multiple family dwellings, etc.

I'm not saying you specifically are responsible for these people. Society as a whole had decided that we don't want to see people starving in the streets.

And by the way, not all of the 47% Mitt cites are people who do drugs, dropped out of school and had kids. A very large percentage of them include hundreds of thousands of out of work war veterans, millions of college students, and the unemployed actively looking for employment. The number of people you are describing and the right likes to portray as being the typical person receiving government assistance, is anything but. Sure, some of those people are out there, but represent perhaps only 1/5th of the population not paying income taxes.

And I could have died today solely because I drove a smaller car to the beach instead of the F350, under the right circumstances. We all have to face the consequences of our choices. And as for your appendix example, an ER that refuses care to any patient having an actual emergency would face both civil and likely federal penalties.

They would face civil and federal penalties because the government has stepped in and said you will take care of these people. What your side advocates for is to toss that idea out. That if you can not pay for medical assistance or have insurance, then tough shit. It only because the government has stepped up that the poor are not left for dead.

Most of them have both of those, as a matter of fact. And since Median household income in the US in 2011 was $50,054, if there is even the slightest correlation between income and taxes most of them are in the 47%. http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf Page 13.

This is a point neither of us can prove conclusively. Its not really relevant to the point either of us is trying to make either.

When the cost of a laborer exceeds his productivity, then he loses his job, it gets outsourced, or if on a large enough scale the employer goes bankrupt and both of the first two happen. This is not a moral thing, this is economic reality. If I am forced to pay you more than I derive in productivity from you, the system collapses e.g. USSR. And if the 47% "deserve" not to pay income taxes, then they damn sure did not/do not "build" the infrastructure. Musta been the 53% then.

Corporate "economic realities" do not excuse us from our social moral obligations. If we have people who are down and out, society has long ago determined that we want a social safety net to help these individuals and families out. What I think many conservatives don't understand is that these is a life time cap on the amount of welfare a person can receive. For most states, its 60 months. The vast majority of people are not on welfare for extended periods of time, most take it when they have to, and strive for gainful employment.

But the reality is simply this. There will always be millions of jobs out there that do not pay a livable wage or offer benefits people need to survive. Your side doesn't want to pay them more nor use illegal immigrants to fill the positions. So now you are left with simply two outcomes. Pull their benefits and let them fend for themselves, or offer them assistance when they need it. The amount we spend on real welfare and assistance - not social security or medicare but real actual welfare is a fart in the wind when compared to the total US budget. I believe its less than 2% of US GDP.

And all of that money is reinvested into the community.

It worked just fine until the housing bubble created when the libs not only encouraged but required making loans that could not be repaid burst, and triggered a systemic wave of failures.

Gonna head to Chad's bachelor party now. Ball in your court.

That is not true. The capital gains tax has only been at about 15% since 2006. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

Have fun with Chad.