Then go say hello to Ted Cruz.
Because giving $3000 to the needy through the earned income credit (only for the really poor who have a job and usually have kids) is blasphemy and letting the wealthy put away $53,000 tax free in a SEP (effectively saving them $13,000+ and possibly far more depending on the tax bracket) is creating jobs.Why is it those that propose to be against welfare always seem to be proponents for welfare for the rich?
Why is it those that propose to be against welfare always seem to be proponents for welfare for the rich?
Because giving $3000 to the needy through the earned income credit (only for the really poor who have a job and usually have kids) is blasphemy and letting the wealthy put away $53,000 tax free in a SEP (effectively saving them $13,000+ and possibly far more depending on the tax bracket) is creating jobs.
The TEA Party is around. It's just that MSM doesn't talk about them anymore.
You might think the fighting in the Ukraine is over too, since it's no longer reported on here.
Fern
I think the last remnants of them are holed up in a wildlife refuge.
So now the welfare label is determined by what you do with free money, not simply that you get free money?
interesting.
They complain about helping the poor but then do anything they possibly can to help the wealthy. I just gave one possible example. It also gives a typical scope to the size of the benefits available for reference. Welfare to the rich (usually in the form of tax savings) costs the government far more per person than welfare to the poor.How is the heck is investing in a retirement plan akin to welfare?
BTW: It's merely tax deferred and they'll pay FICA on the amount (no tax deferral for FICA purposes).
They complain about helping the poor but then do anything they possibly can to help the wealthy. I just gave one possible example. It also gives a typical scope to the size of the benefits available for reference. Welfare to the rich (usually in the form of tax savings) costs the government far more per person than welfare to the poor.
If being "merely tax deferred" made the savings meaningless, then they (the government or the wealthy) wouldn't bother with the whole program.
TWelfare to the rich (usually in the form of tax savings) costs the government far more per person than welfare to the poor.
They complain about helping the poor but then do anything they possibly can to help the wealthy. I just gave one possible example. It also gives a typical scope to the size of the benefits available for reference. Welfare to the rich (usually in the form of tax savings) costs the government far more per person than welfare to the poor.
If being "merely tax deferred" made the savings meaningless, then they (the government or the wealthy) wouldn't bother with the whole program.
No shit, the poor take in more from the government than they pay in taxes, while the rich bear the vast majority of the tax burden.
No shit, the poor take in more from the government than they pay in taxes, while the rich bear the vast majority of the tax burden.
Huh?
kinda miss them...
I think the last remnants of them are holed up in a wildlife refuge.
I think the last remnants of them are holed up in a wildlife refuge.
Hard to rage against Obama after the unemployment rate drops below 5% and gas prices drop to half and the stock market is higher than ever...
what would the rally be about exactly lol
We hate Obama cuz...um...JUST CUZ!!
Trump is "full racist"? This is insane.Trump just proved what the rest of us knew about the Tea Party all along. That if you just go full racist, you'll gain Tea Party support in droves. Did anyone ever really believe the Tea Party's reasoning was anything other than racist? Come on, no one is THAT gullible.
A wealthy person paying 30-40% federal and still taking home $300k-$1mil-xxxxmil is far, far far, far far far less burdened than an individual paying 15, 10, 0% and taking home $15-35k.
But you get that.
Papa John sure as shit depends on the city streets and interstates (et al federal and state infrastructure) transporting his glucose-shaving-emulsified-oil-meat-product from plant, to warehouse, to distributor, to Papa John, to franchise, to fatty.
So, he gets far far far far more out of his tax dollars (via the infrastructure that he pays for, that he depends on for his wealth) than does Tanisha with her 2 jobs, $40k take home, + whatever.
Yeah, the wealthy pay more as a population--of course they do and they pay some 70% less in total tax than they did 100 years ago. They pay far less than in any other first world developed country, and yet they are still improbably wealthy compared to others oh right, their money goes elsewhere anyway...so why complain?)
The burden of wealth: never a good argument from that angle.
Trump just proved what the rest of us knew about the Tea Party all along. That if you just go full racist, you'll gain Tea Party support in droves. Did anyone ever really believe the Tea Party's reasoning was anything other than racist? Come on, no one is THAT gullible.
No shit, the poor take in more from the government than they pay in taxes, while the rich bear the vast majority of the tax burden.