Poverty Apologists / Apologetics

[Slash1972]

@Broomstick

The thing is, manson1972 took it as an absolute statement when it was only intended to refer to a subset of the overall group. Which is hardly the first time **manson **has done that sort of thing.

@Broomstick

Men are attracted to women with rounded curves and tits and smooth skin and all those other features that Hollywood starlets cultivate.

Women, on the other hand, need resources to raise their kids. They’re wired to be attracted to wealth and power, which is one reason men don’t need to worry so much about being young or pretty.

Are these not absolute statements about men and women? I notice you didn’t say SOME men, or SOME women.

[Slash1972]

@Broomstick

Paraphrasing what the judge said during the final appeal, if he did not have beyond a high school education she would have granted him disability because he clearly is unable to engage in physical labor but because he has a master’s level education he can work at a desk job and use a computer. Nevermind that he doesn’t have any relevant current skills and he has nerve damage in his hands, and various other problems. Then she suggested he get a job as a cashier (!) despite being unable to stand for prolonged periods and said problems with his hands.

Basically, because he got higher education he’s not disabled enough to be on disability, even though she admitted he was, in fact, disabled. I am absolutely not going to say anything else about this because I get far, far too angry about the whole thing.

Thank you for sharing this (no sarcasm, really). I won’t ask anything else regarding this, since I try not to get personal on a message board.

[slash2k]

@D_Anconia

It’s not up to me to show that broomstick is incorrect.

She made the claim, and she needs to back it up, at least in Great Debates.

Here’s her quote:

I guess it’s technically true, if by “many other nations”, she meant Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Albania, Macedonia, et. al.

Amongst our peers, we have some of the highest tax rates, personal, payroll, and corporate. Let’s not compare apples and oranges.

Taxes != tax rates. In particular, statutory or headline tax rates have only passing similarity to the taxes actually assessed or collected.

For example, the headline U.S. corporate tax rate is around 39%. The effective rate, what corporations are actually obligated to pay, is somewhere closer to 12to 22 percent (depending on exactly what income and taxes are included). Do you agree that there is a difference between 12 and 39 percent?

This discrepancy is because the U.S. tax code is quite deliberately written to impose different rules and different rates on different incomes, with many opportunities for exemptions and deductions. We have a far more complex tax code than practically any other nation, and comparing our headline rate to the headline rates in other countries, without acknowledging how our tax code differs, yields an overly simplistic and distorted answer.

[D_Anconia]

@slash2k

For example, the headline U.S. corporate tax rate is around 39%. The effective rate, what corporations are actually obligated to pay, is somewhere closer to 12to 22 percent (depending on exactly what income and taxes are included). Do you agree that there is a difference between 12 and 39 percent?

Yes, there is a difference between 12 and 39. We should have a flat tax without exemptions to remove this as an issue.

(Love your second cite btw. “Dear Senator Sanders…” At least we know where you get your information from.)

Still no cite that US taxes (for individuals) are significantly lower than many other nations, as broomstick claimed, unless you stretch the meaning of “many” beyond recognition.

[Broomstick]

@Slash1972

Are these not absolute statements about men and women? I notice you didn’t say SOME men, or SOME women.

MOST people understand such statements to be simplified and general statements and not iron-clad natural law. Otherwise every post becomes three times longer with qualifications and additional wording.

[Ruken]

@D_Anconia

It’s not up to me to show that broomstick is incorrect.

Yet you attempted it anyway and failed, with a cite that you either didn’t fully read or didn’t understand, because by applying **your **logic to **your **cite, there are still many countries with higher taxes. Not that top marginal rate matters, but anyone here paying the top marginal personal rate has a very low marginal FICA rate. Whereas we have “close trading partners” who have progressive payroll taxes that don’t ever drop off like ours does.

@D_Anconia

She made the claim, and she needs to back it up, at least in Great Debates.

Nobody disputes her claim, so that would be a waste of time.

@D_Anconia

I guess it’s technically true

Like I said, nobody disputes her claim. Thank you for admitting you were wrong and she was right. I’m glad that’s settled.

[bump]

@Broomstick

That works until you hit the asset limit.

IF you’re in a situation where going off whatever benefit you’re on is sustainable going forward then continuing to build up a reserve makes sense. If, however, you’re in a situation where if you go off benefits you’ll likely just be back on them in a month or two then it may not be the best course to keep funding that rainy day reserve. In which case you don’t want your assets to exceed the limit that cuts you off from the benefits you require to keep your current situation going as well as it is.

Of course, there are more or less intelligent ways to spend money in that situation. You could, for example, “invest” in canned or nonperishable foods, stock up on dry goods like toilet paper, buy a sturdy pair of shoes, or purchase something you could pawn later if necessary. Or you could buy a case of beer, a fancy nail treatment, and a new tattoo. Clearly, some of those alternatives are more forward thinking than the others. Intelligent spending can leave you with both a rainy day fund and stock of material goods to help you through future days of impaired income.

You’re right, but I was specifically talking about the utility of having a Netflix account vs. saving that same amount of money, and arguing that tiny luxury aside, if you’re in that sort of situation, it’s pretty irresponsible NOT to save that $8 a month, or even more if you can afford it.

It was more about the notion of having a known, steady $8 surplus per month and saying that it really should be saved, rather than blown on binge-watching House of Cards or whatever.

When income’s more intermittent and the amount is more variable, I still think that people should save SOME of that money, but I’m not about to castigate someone for saving 5% instead of 10%, for example. But if you know that you have X amount spare every single month for the foreseeable future, you really should put it away, or at least a chunk of it until you have a reasonable emergency fund.

[bordelond]

@D_Anconia

(Love your second cite btw. “Dear Senator Sanders…” At least we know where you get your information from.)

That link is to the U.S. Government Accounting Office. The report is addressed to Bernie Sanders only because he was the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. Presumably Sanders ordered the report and assumed responsibility for distributing the findings to other members of the committee.

It’s not a shill piece.

[D_Anconia]

@Ruken

Nobody disputes her claim, so that would be a waste of time.

I dispute her claim, and neither broomstick nor anybody else has been able to provide an actual cite to support her claim.

The United States has relatively high taxes, not low ones. Period.