Board 8 > Should we have more welfare for the rich?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Vote away!
---

what about the middle class
---

We would probably need to increase taxes on the middle class to pay for it.
---

uh, there shouldn't be welfare at all for the rich? what kind of question is this? welfare exists to make sure poor people don't starve to death. this is like asking "should we have more gay marriage for straight people?"
---

If they'd like to pay more in taxes and receive the same benefits as the poor...sure.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

uh, there shouldn't be welfare at all for the rich? what kind of question is this? welfare exists to make sure poor people don't starve to death. this is like asking "should we have more gay marriage for straight people?"

I think if you get a divorce, all subsequent marriages should be mandatory gay. It would help avoid the overpopulation mess that China has gotten into.
---

I would say it is quite the opposite. We need more 'farewell' for the rich!
---

Why should the rich ever have welfare? It's bad enough the government sometimes tries to take it away from poor people who need it. A lot of people have completely wrong thoughts about it too. Welfare isn't something you ever really WANT to be on because it means your life situation is awful and it's not nearly as easy to abuse as people think.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

uh, there shouldn't be welfare at all for the rich? what kind of question is this? welfare exists to make sure poor people don't starve to death. this is like asking "should we have more gay marriage for straight people?"

The joke


















Your head
---

Isn't this just asking if we should have a universal basic income in a stealthy way

I mean, unless you're imagining the government adding this welfare to capital gains income or something
---

Apparently nobody here has heard the epithet "corporate welfare".
---

trdl23 posted...

The joke


















Your head

i've seen way more ridiculous red sox polls than this that were actually meant to be taken seriously, so... >_>
---

Apparently no one here understands how society would crumble if JP Morgan or Chrysler went bankrupt
---

Dantezoid posted...

Isn't this just asking if we should have a universal basic income in a stealthy way

yes and it makes the topic low key pretty entertaining, since the people who argue in favor of universal basic income have replied with a resounding NO

so they apparently aren't even in favor of what they are in favor of
---

i don't want universal basic income, for the record.
---

How does UBI count as MORE welfare for the rich? Unless it doesn't include removing existing welfares, in which case it's not really UBI.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

How does UBI count as MORE welfare for the rich? Unless it doesn't include removing existing welfares, in which case it's not really UBI.

UBI does not currently exist

add 1$ UBI

every rich person is now receiving 1 MORE dollar than they were receiving before
---

MariaTaylor posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

How does UBI count as MORE welfare for the rich? Unless it doesn't include removing existing welfares, in which case it's not really UBI.

UBI does not currently exist

add 1$ UBI

every rich person is now receiving 1 MORE dollar than they were receiving before

Not if taxes are increased they aren't, which is kind of necessary for a UBI.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Apparently no one here understands how society would crumble if JP Morgan or Chrysler went bankrupt

I work in the auto industry so I understand this all too well.
---

they are absolutely receiving 1 more dollar in welfare than they were receiving before

even if they are paying more in taxes they are also receiving more welfare
---

We don't have to increase taxes on the rich. A nice tax cut for the top bracket and increase on the upper middle class can pay for it.
---

red sox 777 posted...

We don't have to increase taxes on the rich. A nice tax cut for the top bracket and increase on the upper middle class can pay for it.

better if we just tax the poor that way they don't become too dependent on the new welfare programs
---

This is a silly way to frame it. UBI would be welfare for everyone. It might include the rich, but it's not for the rich necessarily.

Especially since they'd be losing more in taxes than they would be gaining in UBI.
---

Fact: Tax cuts on the rich always end up raising more revenue for the government due to economic growth.

Considering this, it is incredibly irresponsible for our government to not lower income taxes to a negative rate for the highest income brackets. Sure, ignorant poor people might call it "welfare for the rich", but they just don't understand the government's purpose.
---

Xeybozn posted...

Fact: Tax cuts on the rich always end up raising more revenue for the government due to economic growth.

Considering this, it is incredibly irresponsible for our government to not lower income taxes to a negative rate for the highest income brackets. Sure, ignorant poor people might call it "welfare for the rich", but they just don't understand the government's purpose.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/30/452905475/fact-check-do-tax-cuts-grow-the-economy

...
One other nuance — it depends on the type of tax cut. You can imagine how cutting taxes for lower earners might boost activity more than cutting the top marginal rate — lower-income Americans with an extra $100 are more likely to spend that money than a millionaire.

Likewise, the economic research firm Moody's found in 2008 that temporary tax cuts (like rebates) could boost GDP, but permanent ones had a much weaker effect. Meanwhile, boosting spending on programs like food stamps and unemployment had a stronger effect, they found.

In short, if your sole, ultimate goal is faster growth, tax cuts might not be the best policy.

...

And here's where the bottom line comes in — even if you do believe the Tax Foundation's dynamic scores are way too generous, as of earlier this month, they found that one candidate (Rand Paul) comes out with a plan that won't slash revenue, while most of the other candidates will cut it by more than $1 trillion over 10 years.

Trump's plan, by this math, cuts revenue by $10 trillion over 10 years.

...

In that Chicago survey of economists, 71 percent either disagreed or strongly disagreed that tax cuts would lead to higher revenue in the next five years. Meanwhile, zero percent agreed that cutting taxes would raise revenue in the next five years.

"[A tax cut] won't pay for itself. You're not going to cut taxes by a dollar and get a dollar back in revenue from the growth," said Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of the CBO.

...

The Short Answer:

Candidates tend to oversimplify the relationship between tax cuts and economic growth.

---

MariaTaylor posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

How does UBI count as MORE welfare for the rich? Unless it doesn't include removing existing welfares, in which case it's not really UBI.

UBI does not currently exist

add 1$ UBI

every rich person is now receiving 1 MORE dollar than they were receiving before

I get that but UBI involves cutting existing welfare unless you're a complete idiot which I guess is common among people discussing UBI
---

so you're calling yourself a complete idiot?
---

I would like UBI for myself

or welfare

I mean I just want some free money
---