# So why don't we simply call the 99th week of unemployment welfare? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-dont-we-simply-call-the-99th-week-of-unemployment-welfare/564556 "2010-12-17T20:33:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-dont-we-simply-call-the-99th-week-of-unemployment-welfare/564556/21 "2010-12-23T06:40:40Z")
> [@HRoark43](#): > > And what will happen when the rich leave to avoid paying for your dream of higher taxes? Fuck em. Let em leave, trying to win a race to the bottom on taxation is a sucker’s game. I know a lot of rich people and they may change their STATE of residence based on state tax rates, they aren’t going to relocate their family to Bermuda (and remember you can’t spend more than 6 months here or all your income is taxable, any income that is sourced here is taxable here, you can’t escape capital gains simply by denaturalizing), its not worth it for most people. > [@](#): > > Can _anyone_ answer that? I for one left the country as soon as it came time to retire. My taxes aren’t going into paying for people who won’t adapt to the changing economy. If it was easy for me to depart, it’ll be even easier for the really wealthy to do so. You would have to renounce citizenship first and when you retire, your income is likely to go down considerably because well, you’re retired. You will be drawing down assets and any capital gains you have on the property you own when you renounce citizenship is taxable for the next 10 years. > [@](#): > > So you put a heavier tax burden on the corporations… and they close down completely. Then what have you gained? And you think a race to the bottom is the answer? If that happened on a large enough scale then I suppose that tariffs would be in order so that the corporations would have a competitive advantage by staying in the US. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-dont-we-simply-call-the-99th-week-of-unemployment-welfare/564556/22 "2010-12-28T21:25:32Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You would have to renounce citizenship first… No, you don’t. You can leave the country without renouncing your citizenship. People do it all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-dont-we-simply-call-the-99th-week-of-unemployment-welfare/564556/23 "2010-12-28T22:43:51Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > No, you don’t. You can leave the country without renouncing your citizenship. People do it all the time. Yes, but then they still have to pay federal income tax. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-dont-we-simply-call-the-99th-week-of-unemployment-welfare/564556/24 "2010-12-28T23:49:15Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > 26 weeks of unemployment is accurately called: unemployment. > > Anyone getting more than 26 weeks, is getting: **welfare**. Can we likewise call the extension of unwarranted taxcuts for the super-rich **wealthfare**? That giveaway’s been going on a lot longer than 26 weeks. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-dont-we-simply-call-the-99th-week-of-unemployment-welfare/564556/25 "2010-12-29T17:09:31Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Can we likewise call the extension of unwarranted taxcuts for the super-rich **wealthfare**? > That giveaway’s been going on a lot longer than 26 weeks. Retaining what one has rightfully earned is a giveaway? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-dont-we-simply-call-the-99th-week-of-unemployment-welfare/564556/26 "2010-12-29T17:43:19Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Retaining what one has rightfully earned is a giveaway? :dubious: You saying societal infrastructure and stability did not enable them to get that wealth? Would they have made that wealth without such things as a population of educated people, roads, and laws? If they are dependent on society to maintain their wealth, why shouldn’t they have to pay their fair share based on that wealth? ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-dont-we-simply-call-the-99th-week-of-unemployment-welfare/564556/27 "2010-12-29T17:53:17Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > You saying societal infrastructure and stability did not enable them to get that wealth? Would they have made that wealth without such things as a population of educated people, roads, and laws? > > If they are dependent on society to maintain their wealth, why shouldn’t they have to pay their fair share based on that wealth? I’m not saying they don’t owe taxes. I think the tripping point here is what is considered “fair share”. IMHO, the only “fair share” is a flat tax rate - same for everybody. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-dont-we-simply-call-the-99th-week-of-unemployment-welfare/564556/28 "2010-12-29T17:57:59Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > I’m not saying they don’t owe taxes. I think the tripping point here is what is considered “fair share”. IMHO, the only “fair share” is a flat tax rate - same for everybody. Like you said that’s an opinion. Most notions of equity do not agree with that opinion. Telling someone that is barely able to feed his family to pay 20% of his income in taxes is a much higher burden than telling someone who makes a million dollars a year to pay 20% of his wealth in taxes. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-dont-we-simply-call-the-99th-week-of-unemployment-welfare/564556/29 "2010-12-29T18:09:50Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > I’m not saying they don’t owe taxes. I think the tripping point here is what is considered “fair share”. IMHO, the only “fair share” is a flat tax rate - same for everybody. Are you claiming the rich aren’t more reliant on American society for the things that make and keep them rich? How would Bill gates do, if Congress abolished copyright enforcement in the early 90s? Would he be nearly as well off? Would a Mcdonalds worker in that same time frame lose as much? If the rich use and need American society more why shouldn’t they have to more to maintain it? ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-dont-we-simply-call-the-99th-week-of-unemployment-welfare/564556/30 "2010-12-29T18:11:50Z")
Well, I don’t want to hijack the tread, but I think when you look at how much taxes are really paid by those that can afford a staff of accountants, even with a “progressive” tax rate, you’ll find the simple flat tax rate w/no deductions will end increasing tax revenue. As for the lower end of the scale, it would not impact their net pay as deductions should already be withheld from their pay under our current system. That said, I also would not have an issue with a $0 tax for those at or under a certain income level (minimum wage). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-dont-we-simply-call-the-99th-week-of-unemployment-welfare/564556.md?page=1)