Gary, you made a valid point on who is a leech when you talked about the incarcerated felon. Society gives them food, shelter and clothing. I see a big disconnect when someone who is not incarcerated and does not have the opportunity to earn such is denied the three basics.

---

we have answered. You just do not like the answer.

No, you have refused to answer because you are incapable of giving an answer.

Again. A high income paying 10% even if that is $100,000,000 is not paying their fair share of taxes compared to someone who is paying 33%. The high income person not paying their fair share IS the leech.

Everyone gets you don't like the current tax system. But since you can't answer you must think the system we have is the best possible, otherwise you are just being obstructionist. Or are you advocating for a flat tax?

Anyone who manipulates policy to pay less is the slime of the earth.

Really. So any suggestion to reduce is automatically slime and should not be considered. So say the policy manipulation of the "Earned Income Tax Credit" is for the slime of the earth. So the policy manipulation for the "Tax credit for being blind" is for the slime of the earth. At least we understand where you are coming from.

Not the working class(currently being sent to the poor house to further "high income" profits.

And shame on you for standing up for them.

Said to a person who has advocated higher tax rates for higher incomes.

---

Guy's definition of slacker includes most CEO's, day traders, fund managers then?

This could also include most politicians and many attorneys.

Until we get down to the blatant racism.

---

Janice

OK, here's a definition of "slacker/leech" to work with. How about a person who refuses to be a productive member of society? How about a person who refuses to earn what he/she consumes?

You act as if it's always so easy to earn what you consume. Having spent a portion of my life in the inner city, I can tell you that minimum wage is not enough for a mother to support a child, not even with the deflated prices in bad areas. And that mother also would have little hope of getting anything higher than minimum wage. My solution to this problem is to offer education programs (while providing free childcare), to any people finding themselves stuck in this situation.

How about a person who has a sense of entitlement to other people's money with out doing anything to earn it?

Republicans use this term an awful lot. "Entitlement". You know what, if I lose my job, I will file for unemployment because I am "entitled". Does this make me a slacker/leech/socialist/insert improper term here?
I doubt a family that is using foodstamps does so because they feel "entitled", more likely is they simply feel "HUNGRY"...

How about a person who refuses to recognize their field of expertise has an excess of other people who have their same field of expertise and refuses to find a field where there is a shortage of laborers and do what it takes to become an expert in a new field?

Again as above, (offer or perhaps even require) education classes of some sort. Even starting with some basic "common sense". If the person is not working at all, perhaps the classes should be required to the point that services could be stopped if the person does not comply (show up for class)?

How about a person who blames their ancestry on their current predicament?

That sounds like a (semi-racist) stereotype... Most in my generation would never fall back on that excuse, except for a laugh.

How about a person who feels their efforts are worth more than what someone else is willing to pay and therefore refuses to do anything and would rather continue collecting unemployment?

A person can not be asked to take too much of a paycut, and unemployment allows you the right to refuse a job if it's not close enough to your previous pay.
Otherwise, you are just allowing even more companies to lower even more wages, perpetuating the problem and adding more people to your and Gary's "slacker/zombie/leech" category.

Try giving me a definition of someone who is NOT a slacker/leech and then maybe we can work from there.

ANYONE who works 40hrs or more per week, is NOT a slacker. REGARDLESS of income. How 'bout that for a definition?

---

#resist

Sarcastic Guy comment:

And then we'll fix everything by making everyone equal in outcome. (Except those in charge of us.) We'll drain the ocean so all boats sit equally on the sand.

Sarcastic response:
Yes I know, someone making millions per year, will suddenly be equal with everyone else when their income drops from 10Million/year to 8 Million. I mean if they can only take home 8 Million, how can they live like humans? They'll be forced to be equal with everyone. yep.

---

#resist

What's a slacker/leech? Google-video or youtube "free obama money." You'll find several specific examples there.

Why are most of those videos uploaded by a youtube user with the handle "greatguyintx"?

I've been vary specific in answering the question. I have said that income is not the sole measure of benefit to society. I get that you don't like my answer because you can't pigeon hole it. As I keep saying I'm not playing the stereotype game. Is there some reason you must?

Again, How many leeches should a high income person carry?

Doesn't matter how, why, what, where, where or who the leeches are to answer the question. That at least one exists is enough.

Are you afraid to answer my question?

Not afraid to answer it, I sincerely do not understand it. You talk about "slackers", "leeches" etc. but you do not define what you mean by those titles except to say they are "lazy".

At first I thought you were referring to amount of income tax these people were paying (or not paying), but you claim this is not the case.

In a discussion like this, the terms "slackers", "leeches" and "lazy" are open to interpretation depending on the views of the person using them. This is why in my first post I listed a number of groups that I thought might fit your definition.

How many leeches should a high income person carry?

Is a rather open question. Until I can understand your definition of "leech" my answer could vary from none, to all of them. In some cases I could even say that the high income person is the leech, but I'm pretty sure that is not what you mean.

I will happily answer your question when you define the terms of reference better.

If I clearly defined, politicians, hedge fund managers, CDO traders and currency speculators as being the "leeches", and then asked the question "How many leeches should should each low/middle income person carry ?" What would your answer be?

T.A.

(edited for clarity)

Of the examples I quoted which ones do you count as slackers, leeches, lazy etc.

IIRC None of the examples you gave give enough information to classify.

I'd also like to know your reasons for branding them as such.

You are the one doing the branding.

e.g. Do you really consider anyone earning less than the minimum taxable income as a lazy leech ?

T.A.

You use the word "anyone". Does that mean "everyone?" Does that mean any specific individual out of everyone not earning the minimum taxable income?

I've been vary specific in answering the question. I have said that income is not the sole measure of benefit to society. I get that you don't like my answer because you can't pigeon hole it. As I keep saying I'm not playing the stereotype game. Is there some reason you must?

Again, How many leeches should a high income person carry?

Doesn't matter how, why, what, where, where or who the leeches are to answer the question. That at least one exists is enough.

Are you afraid to answer my question?


If you are interested in a strictly income tax perspective, where $ income is the only measure, then answer my question and take the national debt, grab a table of the distribution on taxable income and the population of people making that income and figure it out. It is a simple arithmetic exercise. Change your answer on how many a high income person must support and it changes how many are non-contributing or leeching off the government.

This is how we must decide tax policy. If you can't do it, then you are simply an obstructionist.

we have answered. You just do not like the answer.

Again. A high income paying 10% even if that is $100,000,000 is not paying their fair share of taxes compared to someone who is paying 33%. The high income person not paying their fair share IS the leech.

Anyone who manipulates policy to pay less is the slime of the earth. Not the working class(currently being sent to the poor house to further "high income" profits.

And shame on you for standing up for them.

---

Janice

Of the examples I quoted which ones do you count as slackers, leeches, lazy etc.

IIRC None of the examples you gave give enough information to classify.

I'd also like to know your reasons for branding them as such.

You are the one doing the branding.

e.g. Do you really consider anyone earning less than the minimum taxable income as a lazy leech ?

T.A.

You use the word "anyone". Does that mean "everyone?" Does that mean any specific individual out of everyone not earning the minimum taxable income?

I've been vary specific in answering the question. I have said that income is not the sole measure of benefit to society. I get that you don't like my answer because you can't pigeon hole it. As I keep saying I'm not playing the stereotype game. Is there some reason you must?

Again, How many leeches should a high income person carry?

Doesn't matter how, why, what, where, where or who the leeches are to answer the question. That at least one exists is enough.

Are you afraid to answer my question?


If you are interested in a strictly income tax perspective, where $ income is the only measure, then answer my question and take the national debt, grab a table of the distribution on taxable income and the population of people making that income and figure it out. It is a simple arithmetic exercise. Change your answer on how many a high income person must support and it changes how many are non-contributing or leeching off the government.

This is how we must decide tax policy. If you can't do it, then you are simply an obstructionist.

---

Our culture seems to embrace fiduciary duty, it is just different values. Hell, we have chosen to eat our young.

So true and what an apt description of the National Debt!

Yes, that is part of it, but there is a lot more.

---

Our culture seems to embrace fiduciary duty, it is just different values. Hell, we have chosen to eat our young.

So true and what an apt description of the National Debt!

---

If the bottom line is more important than people, maybe some of you rightists can begin to advocate shooting the dependent people in our society.

Isn't that just another description of single payer health care, where some faceless bureaucrat decides if a treatment is justified?

That's a pretty good description of our current for-profit system Gary...

Yes, which is what single payer is. Or don't you understand what Obamacare is? Each person is required to obtain health insurance from a private insurance company.

---

I thought Mr. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts... So as to not hurt any one group of people.

Those provisions are not part of the Bush tax cuts.

---

Our culture seems to embrace fiduciary duty, it is just different values. Hell, we have chosen to eat our young.

---

Isn't that just another description of single payer health care, where some faceless bureaucrat decides if a treatment is justified?

That is not how Universal Health Care works in every other civilised country. It sound more like a country where the decision is made by a faceless clerk working for an insurance company.....

T.A.

If the bottom line is more important than people, maybe some of you rightists can begin to advocate shooting the dependent people in our society.

Isn't that just another description of single payer health care, where some faceless bureaucrat decides if a treatment is justified?

They are called Doctors.

I know the name and face of all the doctors I have seen over the many years I've had socialised medicine.

---

Reality Internet Personality

If the bottom line is more important than people, maybe some of you rightists can begin to advocate shooting the dependent people in our society.

There are companys that all they care about is the bottom line. The CEO gets paid big bucks to close plants and offshore work. There are many companys In America who dont make a damn thing in America.

Gary is right about that Fiduciary duty law. It needs to be changed and also I read in todays paper that there is talk about changing the tax laws that if an American companys makes nothing in the states then they should be treated like a foriegn company.

Good luck with any of that. The self serving money grubbing idiots we elect to both houses on either side of the isle will make sure that never happens.

---

[/quote]

Old James