Income Inequality

Freeloaders will ALWAYS point to the exceptions and cite them as to how thing should be. What they conveniently forget to do is realize that someone else has to pay for their freeloading lifestyle. Heaven forbid that THEY have to pay their own way. You freeloaders make me sick with your ignorant rantings as you continue to live off of the labor of others.

Oh you mean like:

the interest mortgage deduction which goes overwhelmingly to those making over $100,000 per year,

preferential tax rates for capital gains and dividends,

all that free government owned parking places provided in most residential areas,

sidewalks,

all of the roads and maintenance, which gas taxes don't come close to paying for,

the taxpayer funds that funded a stadium for Jeb's football team,

the 0% capital gains tax on inherited assets,

the over 50% of tax expenditures that go to the wealthiest Americans (the poor get less than 8%),

the generous corporate bankruptcy laws, that allow the wealthy to trump their debt,
...and so on.

Some of the above may even be good economic policy. But don't ever forget that it is free stuff.

And don't forget the massive military equipment build up that House Republicans are putting together as we speak....much of it for stuff the defense department doesn't want but benefits companies in home districts of Republican lawmakers....

FREE pork FOR Republican special interest groups. I think I'd rather give free education to a promising student.

Forbes

"Here are the high notes for the overspending:
•11 new, unsought F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The F-35s have been plagued with problems and doubts. The Defense Department weighed in budget terms how many to buy, but the services are pleased to have Thornberry bust the budget to buy them. The F-35s are produced by Lockheed in Ft. Worth, Texas, conveniently kin to Chairman Thornberry’s Panhandle district.

•An East Coast missile defense that the Defense Department opposes. Maybe the Committee know more about the location of North Korea than the rest of us do.

•A $2 billion boost in the shipbuilding budget, beyond what Defense asked. This includes another unsought Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) – a ship the Secretary of Defense has cut down in a blistering memo.

•Overriding the Administration attempt at retiring Carrier Aircraft Wing 14. The Pentagon found there were not enough carriers to need this aircraft wing. It is not fully staffed and has not been activated since 2011. It is based in Lemoore, California, so its Congressman is David G. Valadao (R-CA), a member of the Appropriations Committee who will no doubt be able to use his post to help the funding.


•The shipbuilding budget is the wedge for some naval plans both very ambitious – and expensively self-serving. The Chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, who steered this spending through is Randy Forbes (R-Va.). He represents the suburbs of Hampton Roads, in the Navy’s most highly funded area in the country. Forbes commented that this bill “increases shipbuilding to $20.6 billion, $2.3 billion more than the President’s budget, and the highest level of shipbuilding since the Reagan-Lehman era, adjusting for inflation.” (Of course, that was at the peak of the naval rivalry with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, when the U.S. Navy faced global confrontation with the Soviet Navy.)

•Forbes continues, “With this legislation, we are . . . making a down payment on the 350-ship Navy we need for national defense.” 350 ships is a staggeringly high number to contemplate funding – budget busting as far as the eye can see. While we have not heard the candidates for President give detailed specifics about how they would spend more on defense, clearly, Chairman Randy Forbes has the vision and perspective to show them the way.
"

But the Navy is the smallest it's been since the Great War, and it's been years since we launched a new Battleship.
Obviously we need throw money at this problem.

***

A high unfunded-liability to GDP ratio is evidence that PM Margaret Thatcher's statement is correct: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

***Re: comments above by forkushV re: "free stuff"***

Everything cited by forkushV is, indeed, the result of Big Government. Were Government smaller, the "expenditures" cited would be less.
However, several of the items cited by forkushV are, in fact, not free stuff.
F'rinstance, DonDiego pays taxes for local roads and road maintenance and sidewalks (although DonDiego personally has no sidewalks.)

The preferential tax-rates which forkushV cites are technically not "free stuff". [Allowing someone to keep something is different than giving something someone does not have to someone.] However, these bestowed "benefits" result from a bloated Government picking and choosing what citizen-behaviors to endorse/subsidize via a complex tax system.
A smaller Government would choose to avoid such interferences and have a simpler tax-system.

DonDiego is opposed to Government expenditures on recreational items like stadia for professional sports teams. Only a Big Government can provide such expenditures, . . . and the returns may fall short of expectations promised to the taxpayers. Government promises often fall short of predictions; Big Government promises fail bigger.

***Re: comments above by pjstroh re: "free stuff"***

Everything which pjstroh cites is a result of Big Government, . . . in fact Very Big Government.

DonDiego supposes the Government spends way too much on Defense. DonDiego supposes much of it is politically driven.
DonDiego supposes much defense spending in Democrat districts is favored by Democrat Congressmen too.

DonDiego would prefer a Government which would make rational decisions on defense needs and spend money on that which is rationally decided to be necessary to those needs.
In fact, the F-35 is an excellent example of a poor decision to spend money, . . . and then spend more money, . . . and then spend even more money on an aircraft that does not perform as well as aircraft already in the military air fleet.
DonDiego is not as informed on the other expenditures cited, but he would not be surprised if they are driven by something "political", i.e. not actual defense needs.

A smaller Government would not, . . . in fact, could not waste nearly as much money.

Historically the rate of return on capital averages about 5% while the GDP grows about 3%. This means that the rich/capital both expand the pie and take a larger percentage slice (about 2% a year). If you do this for too long without a major catastrophe, like a war or revolution that basically wipes out all wealth, then the rich will just end up owning everything. The system is unsustainable without major government intervention.

The US has been on a long streak of low GDP growth and lack of catastrophes. To the average American this translates to rents keep going up but pay stagnating, so it's understandable why they're upset. The government can slow the process by taxing the rich disproportionately, but eventually something has to break.

Half of Americans pay zero federal income taxes, yet those paying aren't paying their "fair share". Is there a Lib on this site willing to "lock in'' what the fair share is?

I think not. You always demand more.

How is it that I work my patootie off well over 50 hours a week on average, keep my bills paid, take care of my family with no assistance from the Gubmint, file my taxes on time, and do all the legally right stuff, while many of the folks that I counsel (4 of 5 of whom incidentally get their counseling subsidized by medicaid or an equivalent pay source, have no jobs and aren't looking, draw the equivalent of foodstamps, draw utilities subsidies, receive rental assistance, have a new cell phone every month or two, smoke cigarettes, drink "energy" drinks daily, but can afford illegal drugs to the point of addiction and court required treatment) bring in a few thousand dollars tax refund, whereas mine is in triple figures? Just what have they contributed to qualify for that refund? I'm baffled.

DonDiego is for more eloquent than Boiler. All I can say is that our government should spend less.

Ha, you know you used to say "taxes." Then you got slightly more honest and began to say "income taxes." And now you've gone full-blown honest with "federal income taxes." I'll take that as a small win.

But federal income taxes aren't the only taxes, are they? In many states, the middle class pays a local and state tax rate four times that of the top 1%. And middle class Americans pay a significant part of their income on federal payroll taxes. Meanwhile the majority of federal tax expenditures like retirement and college funds, and mortgage interest deductions go to those making over $100,000. That's some serious "free stuff" right there.

But don't worry, because it will all trickle down, right? Right?