"Sweden should look to US for welfare solutions" "Perhaps the most radical element in the reform was the introduction of a five year time limit on how long somebody could receive welfare benefits. At the time, many critics believed that these measures would hurt the poor. But ten years later the effect was found to be quite the opposite. The number of families living on welfare had been more than halved from 4.3 to 1.9 million throughout the US." The Local - Sweden should look to US for welfare solutions
since we were talking about welfare, i was curious. the US has spent about $16 billion/yr (hasnt changed over last ten yrs or so). its mostly controlled by states. for La., it seems like you have to make next to nothing to qualify and then you get little money. family of 4 $284/month. seems like families can qualify for $280/month/child on top of that. so $850 a month for a family of 4. many of you probably have car payments that high. http://www.dss.louisiana.gov/Documents/OFS/TANFStPlanAmenJuly20.pdf
This is what I found though. Not only that but in his own platform he plans on raising Social Security tax starting at those with income over $102,000. The problem is when I begin to pay more in taxes and yet my income doesn't increase anywhere near the same rate. I'm all for simplifying. However, the bottom line is with property, investments, retirement funds, charitable donations, etc, my taxes are going to be more complex than the kid who just started their first job at Mickey D's. The government IMO will establish a tax rate/code that is most favorable to the government, not the individual. The biggest deductions and loopholes are being demonstrated within the wall of Congress. Unless I read it wrong, Obama's plan says that the IRS will draw your personal information from bank and employer records, complete your return and simply present it to you for verification and signature. For me, I don't trust that process one iota. Of course I'm sure the "refund" will be expedited if you go along with what they say. While I don't think they should be rocket science, I have issues when I see that my Social Security taxes are set to increase under Obama but retirees making less than $50k will have their income tax eliminated. THAT sure sounds easy. Obama's Tax Evasion - WSJ.com Again I agree that it should be less complicated but completion in less than 5 minutes is just not going to cut it for me. There is a place in between complicated and tax evasion. I'd rather get to that place first. I just don't see how the IRS is more trustworthy than my own accountant. Are you trying to say that men are more reliable than women? :hihi:
Well, we all know that Social Security is going broke. George Bush tried to reduce benefits and increase risk and it flew like a lead zeppelin. The only other remedy is to start paying enough to keep SS solvent. It's either one of the other. Obama is looking for solutions instead of problems. Facing up to the problem is a good thing. If all those deductions, depreciations, donations, etc. were no longer part of the code, then it wouldn't matter, would it? Income is income. We have a government of, by, and for The People. We can influence the government with out votes and through our representatives. What is needed in a proper balance between the costs of the services that we need and the capability of the citizenry to contribute. We must insist that our politicians do the right thing and neither take too much of our money, nor underfund government responsibilities. I wouldn't trust that system either and bank access will never fly. They already have employer records access. Can you link me to where he details this plan? You know that graph is curious. Capital gains tax rates compared with capital gains realizations as a percentage of GDP. Not compared to capital gains taxes received. That might have indicated how much greater or fewer taxes were collected under each rate. The graph presented indicates that people tend to take out more profits for themselves when CG tax rates are lower and fewer when they are higher--something that is obvious. No, I'm saying that a pencil is more reliable than an ink-jet plotter. :grin:
With my tax dollars and those of anyone making more than $102k. Yea, that seems right. The man said he was doing it because he thought it was fair. I just don't happen to agree. Some income is more complicated than others. I am a woman you know. :wave: That's worked so far. :nope::hihi: It came from his own website. Here's the plan although I would say it lacks a few details. Not to mention additional tax credits for those who DON'T itemize. So again, until the code or tax laws are revised which I've seen no plan for, it looks to me like step right up, hand ya money ova, I promise it'll be right. So is the opposite which is that people will not put their money into the economy when they are being pinched. Both Republican and Democratic Presidents saw this and reacted accordingly. What Obama is really doing IMO is attempting to squeeze fund managers at the expense of the individual investor. Pencils are boring. Ink-jet plotters are creative! :lol:
Red...that's a problem with elected Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. Who decides what issues are "government responsibilities"? I believe we spend too much money on issues that a small group of people deem a responsibility. I would like to see many foreign nations, many special interests, and many social programs eliminated from the "government responsibilities" list. We could name many. Many of you have already listed the war. Let's add nation building, many of the so-called global warming myths, abortion clinics, subsidies for industries who don't need it, and many more. I don't believe it's of, by, and for the people anymore. We don't hold politicians accountable. We blame one side and let the other skate. Behind closed doors, the left and the right are probably in unison and laughing their collective ass off at us. Do they pay social security? Do they have a retirement system? Are they set for life? It's amazing how many people don't know what benefits they've set up for themselves. Why don't we ever have a national referendum? Why don't we have tort reform? Why can every nation have national sovereignty but if we do it, we're racists? I have written my elected officials and told them what I support and that I believe they (both parties) spend too much money. I want I-10 and I-20 widened from four to six lanes to facilitate commerce. I want higher salaries for teachers and a better "teacher to student" ratio. I want violent and habitual criminals behind bars and not back on the street becoming recidivists. The list goes on... These candidates tell us just enough to get elected then once in office unleash their true agenda. I think Hillary believes she one of the chosen few and we need her to survive. I think McCain tries to be a moderate by voting conservative then liberal and back and forth. That makes me unsure of where he stands. At this point I don't believe Obama has credible experience and I don't trust many in his inner circle. I'm not pleased with these candidates and fault both parties for VERY WEAK nominees. When we add Bush, Kerry, and Gore into the mix...we're getting screwed. Do we not have anybody better than the clowns we've seen the past 10-20 years? :nope:
