Steve Ballmer Drops Massive Data Dump on How Tax Dollars Are Spent

[tetris42]

Oh give me a break, its a matter of opinion either way.

People are generally selfish, and people like to think that they shouldn't have to pay and that other people should. This is nothing new. And please stop with this concept that poor people pay other taxes in a higher amount than rich people. That's idiotic and not a matter of opinion and patently false.

Rich people pay more of all forms of taxes, including the "regressive" taxes you have described, as an absolute dollar amount.

The point is that the middle class and the rich pay more of their livelihood. 10% less of your income to a rich person means they may not be able to buy another 3 yachts this year. 10% to a middle class person means they may not have any savings. 10% to a poor person means they'll be out on the street because they can't afford food AND rent. Your description of "fair share" completely ignores this. You do emphasize how pay should be more balanced, which I agree with, but since it's not, what's the solution?

At least I was being honest in my argument. I guarantee you pay as little taxes as you are required to by law, and would not be happy to pay a penny more.

See I think you're wrong here. Yes, people can be selfish, but they can come together also. Like if I had to pay 5% more in taxes, but then that extra 5% would end hunger in America, I would be happy to. If I had to pay another 5% and that would end homelessness in America, I would want to pay that too. I might have less money, but then I would have more peace of mind not only for everyone else, but if things ever got too bad for me, the system would have my back. There's a saying "Everybody does better when everybody does better" that has some truth to that. Now of course, a good portion of our taxes get squandered on things I would NEVER want to fund, so I'm sure as hell not volunteering to pay more in our current system, but the truth is more complicated than everybody being a selfish bastard about everything at all times. If that were true, nobody would ever donate to charities, work at volunteer organizations, etc.

 

[Ducman69]

Uhhh, a household is an individual and his or her dependents that file taxes. I'm a household. My dad is a household with one dependent. A college kid with a job that is not a dependent of his parents is a household. People that share a house but file separately are two households. There's nothing ambiguous in the article, and it shows clearly that its tax units that filed income taxes.

I would love to see your source that shows numbers that are different from the above. Here's another source that shows that 1% of the population paid 37.8% of all income tax revenue at an average rate of 27.08%... the percentage is high, but that's again not what matters, its the actual amount paid is astronomical. The top half of tax payers pay 97.2% of all tax revenue collected.

So as I said, the bottom 50% arguing that the wealthy aren't paying "their fair share" when they pay nothing and are generally net tax recipients, meaning they cost society more than they put into the pool is shameful.

Should they get more pay for the work they do? Depending on the job, quite possibly, yes! Are they paying too much in taxes and are the wealthy not paying their fair share? HELL NO! But we use this silly bandaid of wealth redistribution via progressive income taxes because we haven't figured out a way to tackle the root of the problem, which is that contribution and compensation are not always very proportional. Its generally correct for most in the middle of skilled laborers, but at the far ends is totally out of whack, so we've come up with tax shenanigans. If you're not at least in the top 50% of earners in the country though, at least have the humility to not demand that people up top aren't paying "their fair share", as if the government is collecting much taxes from you.

Like if I had to pay 5% more in taxes, but then that extra 5% would end hunger in America, I would be happy to.

End hunger? Oh brother... we don't have people dying of starvation in the United States, and the biggest problem our poor face is an OBESITY epidemic from eating too many calories. Over 30% of individuals with incomes under <$25K a year are clinically obese.

 

[MrBonk]

Want to know what percentage of Americans and Veterans suffer from Tinnitus and how little the government spends on it? That’s in there

Fixed that for ya.

 

[tetris42]

End hunger? Oh brother... we don't have people dying of starvation in the United States, and the biggest problem our poor face is an OBESITY epidemic from eating too many calories. Over 30% of individuals with incomes under <$25K a year are clinically obese.

We have 1 in 5 children in the USA that don't get enough to eat. I don't see how you can paint that as anything other than a problem. Here:

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-hunger-us

Yes, we have an obesity epidemic too. The two can co-exist simultaneously!

 

[Semantics]

Uhhh, a household is an individual and his or her dependents that file taxes. I'm a household. My dad is a household with one dependent. A college kid with a job that is not a dependent of his parents is a household. People that share a house but file separately are two households. There's nothing ambiguous in the article, and it shows clearly that its tax units that filed income taxes.

Last time i checked you file taxes as single, married - joint, married -separate, unmarried with dependents.

You don't file taxes as a household, the only time household comes into play when the IRS is concerned is unmarried with dependents because they want to walk around the fact you have a dependent but no spouse.

Again that's only used to count dependents, if 2 parents in the same house file separately they both can't claim the same dependent, it's not all households the US doesn't have 171 million households. Household was a term used to set the tone, the term household was not used in the actual sources from where the article pulled data from. They are just filings, not households, there are no 77.5 million households not paying income tax.

At which point why would anyone bother with a poorly written article, It's not providing new data and if that's how it's trying to make an argument then I rather not.

 

[tybert7]

Now maybe just a few lemmings will break free and realize that the word free doesn't actually mean free. It's being paid for somewhere.

If by lemmings, you mean liberals, we know none of this stuff is free. Free college in NY is paid for by taxes, this has always been known. Now here is a crazy thought. Some of those things that we pay for through taxes, are worth it.

 

[tybert7]

Oh give me a break, its a matter of opinion either way.

People are generally selfish, and people like to think that they shouldn't have to pay and that other people should. This is nothing new. And please stop with this concept that poor people pay other taxes in a higher amount than rich people. That's idiotic and not a matter of opinion and patently false.

Rich people pay more of all forms of taxes, including the "regressive" taxes you have described, as an absolute dollar amount.

At least I was being honest in my argument. I guarantee you pay as little taxes as you are required to by law, and would not be happy to pay a penny more.

They pay more in terms of absolute dollar amounts, but there are some forms of income to the more well to do crowd where they pay far less. Social security taxes taken out of payroll have a cap, anything above that is free and clear. Income from labor is taxed at higher rates up the scale than income from investments. Now you may say that's fine as it encourages more investment, and I might agree, but with a cap. The first million dollars a year in investment income gets the lower tax rates, beyond that or some other target number and you ought to pay more because clearly this is not just some tangential savings. Same thing goes for the mortage interest rate deduction, there should be a cap, we do not need to subsidize the interest payments on the mansions of the wealthy, and we currently do.

But the key point is this, I think the wealthy should pay higher taxes in both total dollar amounts and percentages. That seems reasonable to me. Look at this chart.

If you look at that breakdown, it's clear that the poor are not reckless spenders pissing away all the cash they come into contact with. But look at the bottom metric, savings. Because they have less money to play with, they can't afford to save the way wealthier people can. Now your attitude may be like the typical libertarian, And? Why is that MY problem? Live, die, thrive, suffer, what's it to me? The beginning and end of my concern is about ME and MINE. It is well known that libertarian types rate much lower on tests that measure empathy, so I get where the attitude is coming from. But I do not want to live in a society that is based on a PURE meritocracy in all things. Why? Because we do not live in a world where ALL the variables of peoples outcomes is based on what they do.

Think of outcomes as a function with many variables.

Outcomes (Effort, aptitude, drive, environment, social contacts, etc etc) = $%*&$((@#@

That is by no means an exhaustive list. But look at what I underlined. That right there, all by itself, undercuts the legitimacy of a PURE meritocracy in all of society. No one chooses their aptitude, you cannot work harder to increase it, no one EARNS how smart they are. That is based on the lottery of nature, and in todays world it is increasingly important in the fates of men. Does that mean we go all wobbly and try to construct a world where all effort and work is rewarded equally? Of course not. On the front end, I want things like admissions in school, and being chosen for jobs, and financial rewards from the economy based almost purely on merit. We need that for capitalism to function best. But on the back end, we use the tax system to... wait for it... redistribute some of the earnings from the nation to raise the floor for people who find themselves on the bottom. Not to make them equal to those with more gifts and talent and drive, but to make the consequences of not having those things less severe, because outcomes are NOT just based on what we do. And if you are annoyed that your tax rates are higher than someone elses who makes less? Calm down, you are still doing better than they are financially, and in many cases, you were gifted with more ability or luck. Would you trade places with a person who made less money but was paying lower taxes? I thought so.

 

[Retronym]

taxes that go to pay other Americans to do jobs that theoretically help other Americans, or are used to buy American-made goods and services for government work are all reinvested back in the economy.

via malinvestment.

 

[DejaWiz]

That's pretty awesome!

We also need a database of all politicians and how they are funded as part of law, perhaps under freedom of information act expansion. I never understand how people like Nancy Pelosi have a salary of around $200K a year, and has a net worth of $26 million despite a super lavish lifestyle throwing money around like its nothing... maybe its legit income, maybe its lobbyists and Hillary style bribes of $400K "speaking fees" for a 5-minute speech in exchange for future favors.

It's not "official", per se...but a lot of that info is out there to be found.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=C&cid=N00007360&newMem=N&cycle=2014

 

[Ducman69]

They pay more in terms of absolute dollar amounts.

Yup, they sure do. No tax exists that the poor pay in a greater amount than the rich. Period. That was my statement. That statement is a fact.

But the key point is this, I think the wealthy should pay higher taxes in both total dollar amounts and percentages.

Fine. I didn't say they shouldn't, because of problems within the capitalist system. But my point, the only point I ever made, is how can someone paying virtually nothing be mad at people for "not paying enough" that are paying so drastically much more than they are? Even a flat tax would already cause someone that is successful and hard working to have a far greater burden in supporting society than someone that is a failure and lazy.

And yes, most would argue that while free market capitalism is generally good at moving resources to what is most in demand, that contribution and compensation are often divorced. Everyone would do no work or the least stressful, safest, fewest hours, and most laid back fun jobs possible if there were no carrot that said, "Hey, if instead of drinking or playing video games tonight, you study another chapter of ITIL so you can get your certification" or "Hey, if you put in the extra hours and really kick ass at work, you can push for that promotion"... but we have CEOs where the carrot is $5 million cash bonus on top of stock option worth tens of millions on top of all expenses paid and massive per diems and so forth, because of social networks and scratch my back scratch your back deals between elites, when a carrot of say even just $500K salary would otherwise have no problem finding a person willing to take on the role.

If you look at that breakdown, it's clear that the poor are not reckless spenders pissing away all the cash they come into contact with.

Of course most are, through a series of poor life choices that leads to long-term failure, and their spending is typically reigned in only by limits to what funds they have to play with by and large due to lack of savings and poor credit. I wasn't born yesterday, so don't blow smoke up my butt. Just look at what happens when you give your average poor person a large sum of money. They don't grow it or invest it, and are generally poor again in no time. The root cause is typically a lack of self-control and inability to delay satisfaction. That's why they haven't developed a useful skillset most of the time as well, because it means delaying satisfaction to better themselves (starting in grade school).

Now your attitude may be like the typical libertarian, And? Why is that MY problem? Live, die, thrive, suffer, what's it to me? The beginning and end of my concern is about ME and MINE. It is well known that libertarian types rate much lower on tests that measure empathy, so I get where the attitude is coming from.

It is well known that virtue-signaling liberals like to make things up on the internet without attempting to support them, by claiming its "well known", and like to pretend to be selfless while in action rather than words are exceedingly selfish and look down upon or are at least dismissive towards altruistic team-based behavior such as nationalism and patriotism where the needs of the individual are outweighed by the needs of the team.

No one chooses their aptitude, you cannot work harder to increase it, no one EARNS how smart they are. That is based on the lottery of nature, and in todays world it is increasingly important in the fates of men. Does that mean we go all wobbly and try to construct a world where all effort and work is rewarded equally? Of course not. On the front end, I want things like admissions in school, and being chosen for jobs, and financial rewards from the economy based almost purely on merit. We need that for capitalism to function best. But on the back end, we use the tax system to... wait for it... redistribute some of the earnings from the nation to raise the floor for people who find themselves on the bottom. Not to make them equal to those with more gifts and talent and drive, but to make the consequences of not having those things less severe, because outcomes are NOT just based on what we do.

I think the biggest problem with so many people posting in this thread, is that they are arguing with an idea in their head rather than actual statements posted here, and THAT is what I find annoying. I can tell you aren't really talking to me, you're talking out loud to regurgitate an argument you've probably had with others in the past against talking points that were never brought up here in the first place, by already objectifying me as some "typical Libertarian monolith statue" and thus can project arguments onto me I've never even touched upon.

Now to get back at the only point I ever made in this thread, lets say that we have Joe Blow who is fourth generation inbred with a mother that smoked and drank alcohol during his pregnancy and frankly he's an ugly crippled idiot. Its not his fault he's a useless dumbass, but he is, and everyone else's quality of life is worse because of his existence and lets say there's nothing he can do about that. Does he, morally and logically, have a valid argument when he is a massive net-tax leach on society and contributes almost nothing in taxes, when he stands up on a pedestal and proclaims "Derp, here I am payin' so much taxes as a percent of my non-existent income, based on me bein' a retard, when Mitt Romney aint doin' SHIIIIEEEEEEEET", when in fact Mitt Romney is a massive net tax contributor that is paying far more than his fair share into the collective tax pool.

My point is that no, Joe Blow needs to sit down and STFU and be grateful that the government is redistributing wealth to him, and he can say "thank you" and go back to having sex with his cousin.

 

[Jagger100]

"USAFacts" - The name already looks bad. If you were relaying manipulated 'data' for say political reasons the last thing you would call yourself is "USALies". That says they have to sell these as "Facts, I tell ya!" from the start which means they are selling you.

 

[tetris42]

They pay more in terms of absolute dollar amounts, but there are some forms of income to the more well to do crowd where they pay far less. Social security taxes taken out of payroll have a cap, anything above that is free and clear. Income from labor is taxed at higher rates up the scale than income from investments. Now you may say that's fine as it encourages more investment, and I might agree, but with a cap. The first million dollars a year in investment income gets the lower tax rates, beyond that or some other target number and you ought to pay more because clearly this is not just some tangential savings. Same thing goes for the mortage interest rate deduction, there should be a cap, we do not need to subsidize the interest payments on the mansions of the wealthy, and we currently do.

But the key point is this, I think the wealthy should pay higher taxes in both total dollar amounts and percentages. That seems reasonable to me. Look at this chart.

If you look at that breakdown, it's clear that the poor are not reckless spenders pissing away all the cash they come into contact with. But look at the bottom metric, savings. Because they have less money to play with, they can't afford to save the way wealthier people can. Now your attitude may be like the typical libertarian, And? Why is that MY problem? Live, die, thrive, suffer, what's it to me? The beginning and end of my concern is about ME and MINE. It is well known that libertarian types rate much lower on tests that measure empathy, so I get where the attitude is coming from. But I do not want to live in a society that is based on a PURE meritocracy in all things. Why? Because we do not live in a world where ALL the variables of peoples outcomes is based on what they do.

Think of outcomes as a function with many variables.

Outcomes (Effort, aptitude, drive, environment, social contacts, etc etc) = $%*&$((@#@

That is by no means an exhaustive list. But look at what I underlined. That right there, all by itself, undercuts the legitimacy of a PURE meritocracy in all of society. No one chooses their aptitude, you cannot work harder to increase it, no one EARNS how smart they are. That is based on the lottery of nature, and in todays world it is increasingly important in the fates of men. Does that mean we go all wobbly and try to construct a world where all effort and work is rewarded equally? Of course not. On the front end, I want things like admissions in school, and being chosen for jobs, and financial rewards from the economy based almost purely on merit. We need that for capitalism to function best. But on the back end, we use the tax system to... wait for it... redistribute some of the earnings from the nation to raise the floor for people who find themselves on the bottom. Not to make them equal to those with more gifts and talent and drive, but to make the consequences of not having those things less severe, because outcomes are NOT just based on what we do. And if you are annoyed that your tax rates are higher than someone elses who makes less? Calm down, you are still doing better than they are financially, and in many cases, you were gifted with more ability or luck. Would you trade places with a person who made less money but was paying lower taxes? I thought so.

I'm honestly surprised this chart isn't more extreme than it is. As someone who's hovered around the unlisted bracket there (20-50k) I can say that more income DRAMATICALLY changes the percentages. The thing is, for the poorest bracket, there's not much choice on your income distribution if you want to survive. As you get more, you have far more options to change those percentages as you please. Driving around in a used economy car v. a flashy sports car is just one example.

Also, I notice the chart just shows the cutoff point of being 150k and up. This really doesn't represent the class of people who are altering the entire system. A doctor or lawyer pulling in low 6 figures is not the problem. A person pulling in hundreds of millions per year and hiring lobbyists to change our laws in their favor and funding "think tanks" to churn out propaganda is the problem. I'd like to see THEIR percentage breakdown. Just as lower-upper / upper-middle class people are a world apart economically from the working class, the top 0.1% is a world apart from the wealthy professional class, yet have more influence on policy than everyone else combined.

EDIT:
The "food at home" bracket seems suspiciously low for the poor. With a rough estimate for taxes, that would put their spending at around $110 - 160 month. Good luck with that.

 

[mesyn191]

Getting a mortgage is a pretty shit way to lower your tax burden

It is indeed.

The mortgage tax deduction only gets played up by the clueless, its been common knowledge for decades that its virtually worthless to most.

https://20somethingfinance.com/mortgage-tax-deduction/

Let’s take a hypothetical situation to crunch some numbers. We’ll assume:

• You take out a $200K mortgage @ 4.5% interest over 30 years.
• In your first full year, you’d be paying about $8,873 in interest and $3,287 in principal.
• You have property taxes of $3,000 per year.
• You’re married, and eligible for a $12,600 standard deduction.

Your two big deductions are your mortgage interest and your property taxes. We’ll assume these are your only two, but individual situation may vary. In this example, this would equate to a total itemized deduction of $11,873. If you had no other deductions, you’d actually lose $727 in tax deduction benefits vs. a standard deduction.

Even if you took out a larger loan that cranked up your mortgage interest payments to $10,000 in the first year and you were in the 15% tax bracket, this would equate to a whopping annual tax savings equal to $60 (15% x $400).

In the process, you will have paid $13,000 (mortgage interest + property taxes) that you’ll never get back in order to get that $60 in extra tax savings!

And what if you have a smaller mortgage, lower property taxes, or a mortgage with lower interest rates than this? Your “benefit” is even less impressive – and might actually be far less than the standard deduction.

And the longer you pay off your mortgage, the less of your mortgage payment goes to interest – and the less you can deduct from your taxes. In other words, every passing year equates to a lower tax benefit. This is one of the reasons why I’m a fan of paying off your mortgage early.

Its also farcical to suggest, as others have in thread, that people save on their taxes by investing in a 401K or some other investment vehicle. Most Americans don't make enough to invest hardly anything at all and unless you're pumping quite a bit of money into your investments yearly (which the rich can and do do easily since they're rich) the tax deductions saved by investing $100 monthly aren't worth talking about.

 

[mesyn191]

So you support slavery then?

Don't be facetious.

Nearly the entire rest of the entire world uses govt. ran healthcare and it doesn't even come close to resembling slavery for healthcare workers or doctors there. They do tend to get paid less but that isn't slavery. And they generally pay about half the price for similar quality healthcare vs the US.

 

[mesyn191]

Uhhh, a household is an individual and his or her dependents that file taxes.

Household's can have multiple earners and frequently do. 2 is normal. More isn't uncommon. The way taxes are filed in such a household can vary widely so you have to be very careful when making blanket statements.

the percentage is high, but that's again not what matters, its the actual amount paid is astronomical.

Percentage matters far more when considering both means and fairness which is why it is commonly used. And since the rich have most of the wealth in the US they SHOULD pay the lion's share of the wealth.

And the reason why so many people in the US don't pay taxes is because they're too poor to get taxed much at all. Taxing the poor excessively is inhumane and regressive from both a moral and ethical stand point and historically it has resulted in terrible social unrest.

Should they get more pay for the work they do? Depending on the job, quite possibly, yes!

Virtually everyone who works for a living has had their wages eroded (really stole) by employers not doing COLA's for decades, something which used to be normal up until the late 70's/early 80's. It wouldn't really be giving people a raise per se, you'd just be adjusting for decades of wage theft and in real dollars they'd end up getting paid the same as they were back then.

But we use this silly bandaid of wealth redistribution via progressive income taxes because we haven't figured out a way to tackle the root of the problem, which is that contribution and compensation are not always very proportional.

Progressive taxation is the best "bandaid" since the alternative would be wage fixing on a per job basis which would be even more of a nightmare legally to both enforce and write into law.

we don't have people dying of starvation in the United States,

There are about 12.7 million households that rated as food insecure in the US.

 

[Morlock]

…Mr. Ballmer plans to make public a database and a report that he and a small army of economists, professors and other professionals have been assembling as part of a stealth start-up over the last three years called USAFacts. The database is perhaps the first nonpartisan effort to create a fully integrated look at revenue and spending across federal, state and local governments. Want to know how many police officers are employed in various parts of the country and compare that against crime rates? Want to know how much revenue is brought in from parking tickets and the cost to collect? Want to know what percentage of Americans suffer from diagnosed depression and how much the government spends on it? That’s in there. You can slice the numbers in all sorts of ways.

Ballmer & co. get my applause.

It would be nice if there are demographic breakdowns in there. A while back I was trying to get a demographic breakdown of employees in federal, state, and local gov't as a whole, and I turned up jack squat.

I support my taxes being used for:
1. Those that truly need the safety net due to illness (mental or physical)
2. The Elderly
3. Misfortune, for a limited time
4. Healthcare for everyone, this should be a right of humanity

I don't support:
1. Benefits for having babies
2. Lazy and just won't work
3. Abuse and we all know there is a shitload of it

As long as economist and politician crowing about "birth dearths, "low birthrates," etc. is being used to justify open borders and mass immigration, I'm going to support benefits for natives in two-parent families who have kids.

Generally speaking, increased trade has increased the spending power of the dollar. Issues like income inequality, the failure of trickledown economics, and regional disparities prevent everyone from benifiting leading to the global rise in isolationist policies.

I tend to like "isolationist" (leftist code for "not globalist/hollowed-out enough," IME) policies. Regarding income inequality, I was just reading something interesting on this:

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/proportionality-the-fairness-of-inequality/#comment-1841506

TL;DR version, people want economic fairness, not economic equality. In fact, people tend to want economic inequality as a byproduct of economic fairness.

It's an entire system. They have many, many ways of getting around actual bribery to keep it legal. Like if your company donates a bunch to my campaign, after I've served my term, I go and work for you as a "consultant" to the tune of 7 figures with light duties involved. It's an entire network of back scratching for the ruling class and it's on both the democrats and the republicans.

"Speaking fees" seem to be the primary mechanism for post-facto bribes. The American system of political bribery is pretty finely-tuned, with the money coming to the pol after he's retired. Oh, and book deals, those are good too.

Prolly a bad example, as I doubt you pay anywhere close as much in taxes as he does. It'd be like if we went out to eat and split the tab, percent of hourly wage is less important than the total amount paid.

On the contrary, the percentage is very important, and every dollar (or percentage point) looms larger, the lower down the scale you go. That's why I support progressive income tax (insofar as income tax is going to exist, which is a crucial point), even though I'm pretty far right; take 25% of a wealthy man's income, and you might take away half the sports cars he was going to buy, or the 5th vacation he was going to take. Take 25% of a poor man's income, and you're taking food out of his children's mouths. And this is before we go into other implications of how wealth and income scale, e.g., it doesn't cost George Soros much as % of wealth to hire a small army of accountants and lawyers to game the tax system.

Also, the upshot of a flat tax is that you can't tune it to be low enough to not be an onerous burden on the working and middle classes, AND high enough to bring in enough revenue.

I'm very much in favor of lower tax rates across the board, and smaller gov't. But the flat tax is simply an oligarch pet project.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

I'm honestly surprised this chart isn't more extreme than it is. As someone who's hovered around the unlisted bracket there (20-50k) I can say that more income DRAMATICALLY changes the percentages. The thing is, for the poorest bracket, there's not much choice on your income distribution if you want to survive. As you get more, you have far more options to change those percentages as you please. Driving around in a used economy car v. a flashy sports car is just one example.

Bad example. Cars are what referred to as a "Sliding asset"...meaning they always lose money. Most millionaires drive taurses and camrys. Even Warren Buffet and Steve Ballmer drive basic cars. Src: "The Millionaire Next Door" We bought our taurses slightly used for > 50% off. We paid cash. No monthly payment means we can put more money away. The fancy corvettes will come during retirement when we have millions more and don't need to drive them 20,000 miles a year.

 

[Morlock]

I know I just used starvation in an theoretical example, but I find the comments about "hunger in America" amusing. Given our obesity epidemic (NO, it is not limited to the wealthier end of the spectrum, on the contrary, it seems to be disproportionately a thing among the poorer end), for one thing.

Nobody's going hungry in America, except as byproducts of other problems, in which case treating the hunger problem directly won't help. E.g., I'd be willing to wager that the vast majority of the kids in this country who aren't getting enough food have parents who are junkies, or nuts, or both. Give them more food stamps and they'll use them to buy more drugs, or more of whatever the crazy parents are doing with them.

 

[mesyn191]

Most millionaires drive taurses and camrys.

Only if you include their house in their net worth, which is a sick joke. People who actually have liquid assets in the million dollar range or who earn a significant chunk of $1 million a year do not drive Taurses and Camry's.

Src: "The Millionaire Next Door"

That is a crap tier "advice" book that has very little actual practical real world advice and is mostly just anecdotes about people who have a lot of money.

We bought out taurses slightly used for > 50% off.

Hahahahahaha have you seen the used car market lately? I know you haven't if you're saying stuff like this. Slightly used cars do not sell for >50% off unless they're salvage titles that aren't even really repaired properly. Used car prices have recently reached a new all time high in 2016 BTW.

We paid cash. No monthly payment means we can put more money away.

Hahahahaha what you think people WANT to get into a 72mo+ car loan?! Or that they don't realize being able to pay outright would be cheaper!?!?!

EVERYONE KNOWS THIS. THEY TAKE THE CRAPPY LOAN BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO. THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.

They have no choice because:
a) their wages aren't high enough. Wages have been stagnating or declining in real terms for decades while benefits have been continuously slashed.
b) cars are too friggin' expensive, the avg. price of a new car in 2016 is $34K.
(edit) c) public transportation in the US is at best a joke and frequently non-existent, you NEED a car

Virtually no avg. wage earner in the US can afford to save that much money in any reasonable amount of time and still afford to live.

 

[mesyn191]

but I find the comments about "hunger in America" amusing. ...Nobody's going hungry in America,

Why don't you try reading the multiple links in thread on the subject which prove you wrong on this subject before posting further?

Also how do children "choose" to go hungry? here is tetris42's link if you need it again:

We have 1 in 5 children in the USA that don't get enough to eat.

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-hunger-us

 

[Morlock]

If you and I decide to split a pizza together, and the pizza is $10, does the person paying $2 (because he has less money) get to complain that the other guy who paid $8 didn't pay enough (because he has more money)? Seems dumb, and the bigger problem IMO is just why there is such huge income disparity, rather than having one guy pay very little in tax dollars while another guy pays fortunes, as a form of income redistribution.

If I went to lunch with George Soros and he didn't pick up the tab, I'd think "what a cheap fuck."

 

[Morlock]

Also how do children "choose" to go hungry?

No fucking idea. When did you stop beating your wife?

 

[mesyn191]

No fucking idea.

If you don't know anything about the subject maybe you shouldn't post anything about it much less be "amused" by it either.

edit: post proof that child starvation in the US is manufactured BS for money or STFU\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

 

[Morlock]

We have 1 in 5 children in the USA that don't get enough to eat.

I do believe we have NGOs that make money by selling the idea that starvation's a thing in America. Otherwise, I said my bit.

 

[Morlock]

If you don't know anything about the subject maybe you shouldn't post anything about it much less be "amused" by it either.

So you haven't stopped beating your wife?

 

[Ducman69]

There are about 12.7 million households that rated as food insecure in the US.

Which is complete and unadulterated LIE, and you know it. Our poor are not underweight, they are overweight, by a far wider margin than the middle and upper class (that are also on average overweight). The poor are as a whole eating excessively and they are typically eating unnecessarily expensive prepared food at that.

Why? Because poor people are usually poor because they make poor life choices, including spending a fortune at KFC for unhealthy food and ordering too much food, rather than saving money and eating less and cheaper self-prepared food (potatoes, canned veggies, celery, milk, bananas, and eggs are exceedingly cheap).

"You gunna eat that chair?" - fat poor kid, probably

 

[tetris42]

Bad example. Cars are what referred to as a "Sliding asset"...meaning they always lose money. Most millionaires drive taurses and camrys. Even Warren Buffet and Steve Ballmer drive basic cars. Src: "The Millionaire Next Door" We bought our taurses slightly used for > 50% off. We paid cash. No monthly payment means we can put more money away. The fancy corvettes will come during retirement when we have millions more and don't need to drive them 20,000 miles a year.

The point is you have far more control as to how economical you want to live the more money you have. Happy with your house apartment, but are making $10,000 more than you used to? Great, your cost of housing is now a low percentage of where your overall income goes. The chart showed things like transportation and gasoline costs staying about the same between class levels, which implies they're spending more on it as they become more wealthy. When I had more money, I stopped buying the dirt cheapest food at the grocery store and would eat a little better as a result, so that cost more and kept the percentage of my income towards food similar (although it STILL went down percentage-wise). The point is, if you live economically, then get more money, you can KEEP living economically and save a lot of money OR you can have a little bit more luxurious lifestyle, the choice is yours. If you're poor, you don't have those choices. If you're in the top 0.1%, you really have to TRY to outspend what you're bringing in. Even living in the absolutely lap of luxury barely dents your income when you're bringing in billions.

 

[Morlock]

but I find the comments about "hunger in America" amusing. ...Nobody's going hungry in America,

Hostile edits are cute. Right back at ya:

Why don't you...go hungry?...you need it..

 

[mesyn191]

Which is complete and unadulterated bullshit LIE, and you know it.

A picture of a fat kid or 2 isn't proof (edit) against the fact that surprisingly huge numbers of kids go hungry in the US.

And obesity is a completely different problem, one which can coexist with starvation even among the poor (hint: the crappiest and unhealthiest food is the cheapest).

 

[mesyn191]

So you haven't stopped beating your wife?

I thought you said you'd "said your bit"?

That all you can do is weak attempts at trolling isn't going to impress anyone.

 

[tetris42]

Why don't you try reading the multiple links in thread on the subject which prove you wrong on this subject before posting further?

Also how do children "choose" to go hungry? here is tetris42's link if you need it again:

Well in fairness, it references radical, sensationalist sources, like the US Department of Agriculture.

 

[Morlock]

edit: post proof that child starvation in the US is manufactured BS for money or STFU\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

How many kids died last year in the US from starvation?

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that starvation's a real thing in America. Heck, even "food insecurity," whatever that means. How can there be so many poor people who are fat, if these are real things? This is excluding the real problem, which I already addressed, btw (abusive/junkie/crazy parents, which is an abusive/junkie/crazy parents problem, and not really a starvation problem; you can give a junkie parent as much food as you want, it'll all get converted to smack).

 

[Morlock]

Well in fairness, it references radical, sensationalist sources, like the US Department of Agriculture.

Dept of Agriculture gets funding (in large part to subsidize agriculture corporations) for this. It's in their interests to BS the public.

 

[Ducman69]

A picture of a fat kid or 2 isn't proof (edit) against the fact that surprisingly huge numbers of kids go hungry in the US.

And obesity is a completely different problem, one which can coexist with starvation even among the poor (hint: the crappiest and unhealthiest food is the cheapest).

Hint, no, fast food is NOT cheaper than eating fewer calories of very heavily subsidized non-prepared food like the examples I provided of making a meal with potatoes, canned veggies, bananas, milk, corn, eggs, and celery, and generic multivitamins are cheap.

In fact, it boggles the mind the ghetto poor people I see lined up at crazy expensive KFC and Dominos and the like, when I couldn't even afford to eat like that all the time without redoing my whole budget.

 

[mesyn191]

How many kids died last year in the US from starvation?

Don't play the goal post shifting game.

You can be starving and not actually die from it. People in Somalia do it all the time.

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that starvation's a real thing in America.

I already posted a link to a good source earlier. And I quoted tetris42's for you too. And you were the one who was saying starvation isn't a issue at all in the US. So put up or shut up.

 

[tetris42]

How many kids died last year in the US from starvation?

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that starvation's a real thing in America. Heck, even "food insecurity," whatever that means. How can there be so many poor people who are fat, if these are real things? This is excluding the real problem, which I already addressed, btw (abusive/junkie/crazy parents, which is an abusive/junkie/crazy parents problem, and not really a starvation problem; you can give a junkie parent as much food as you want, it'll all get converted to smack).

The hunger people in the United States isn't the same kind that those face in part of Africa where people will literally starve to death. It means you don't get enough of the food you need, which leads to malnutrition, not literally starving to death. I mean hell, you can take a look at here at deaths due to malnutrition:

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/

We're way ahead of Africa and South America, but behind such progressive countries like Russia, China, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Kazachstan, etc.

 

[mesyn191]

Hint, no, fast food is NOT cheaper

Sure it is. If you can't afford a car and need to walk to the closest gas station or fast food joint for food then it is by far the cheapest food to eat. Maybe you didn't know this but quite a lot of the poor either don't have cars or have limited access to one and since public transportation is a joke at best they'll go to whatever is closest and cheapest.

Also google "food deserts" while you're at it.

crazy expensive KFC and Dominos and the like, when I couldn't even afford to eat like that all the time without redoing my whole budget.

The poor only go to those places when they're running a deal. Generally they're going to go for the $.99 menu.

 

[Morlock]

Why? Because poor people are usually poor because they make poor life choices, including spending a fortune at KFC for unhealthy food and ordering too much food, rather than saving money and eating less and cheaper self-prepared food (potatoes, canned veggies, celery, milk, bananas, and eggs are exceedingly cheap).

Leftists have baked the refusal to acknowledge this into their cake (har-har). Might be part of why they despise traditional wisdom (e.g., "you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."). Poor people spend their money on dumb shit, save nothing, etc. I've seen this up close aplenty. Most poor people have big TVs and cable service, for example. Cable service is not a human right, it's not even a human need. They'd be better served reading library books, which are provided gratis. Add up enough choices like this and...

Strangely, I've not read anything about a push to get public education to drill good economic practices into kids' heads before they go out into the world and start racking up credit card debt, financing late model cars, etc.

 

[Morlock]

Sure it is. If you can't afford a car and need to walk to the closest gas station or fast food joint for food then it is by far the cheapest food to eat. Maybe you didn't know this but quite a lot of the poor either don't have cars or have limited access to one and since public transportation is a joke at best they'll go to whatever is closest and cheapest.

Also google "food deserts" while you're at it.

And why do we have food deserts? Because the people living in them drive legitimate businesses away with the constant theft, violent crime, etc. So naturally leftists want to make law enforcement even more difficult and less effective in these places than it already is, diminish the consequences of crime, etc.

 

[Ducman69]

Don't play the goal post shifting game.

You can be starving and not actually die from it. People in Somalia do it all the time.

People in Somalia are more often than not fat from overeating; particularly the women. Have you seen the average Somali 30+ woman these days? Fat as F... in fact that's a well known stereotype, showing that you're buying into liberal propaganda about "starving people in Africa" nonsense.

In fact, morbid obesity is on a dramatic rise in Africa: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3721807/