10 replies to this topic

[Jill]

Has anyone/everyone seen/read Tom Coburn's recently released report, "Subsidies of the Rich & Famous"?


[blockquote]Dear Taxpayer,

The government safety net has been cast far and wide, with almost half of all American households now receiving some form of government assistance. But most taxpayers will be asking why when they learn who is receiving what.

From tax write-offs for gambling losses, vacation homes, and luxury yachts to subsidies for their ranches and estates, the government is subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Multimillionaires are even receiving government checks for not working. This welfare for the well-off – costing billions of dollars a year – is being paid for with the taxes of the less fortunate, many who are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and IOUs to be paid off by future
generations.

This is not an accidental loophole in the law. To the contrary, this reverse Robin Hood style of wealth redistribution is an intentional effort to get all Americans bought into a system where everyone appears to benefit. ...

We should never demonize those who are successful. [aside: that is not what Occupy or the 99% are doing. G-d love the rich; more power to 'em. But ...] Nor should we pamper them with unnecessary welfare to create an appearance everyone is benefiting from federal programs. ...

The government’s social safety net, which has long existed to catch those who are down and help them get back up, is now being used as a hammock by some millionaires, some who are paying less taxes than average middle class families. Comprehensive information on the full range of government benefits enjoyed by millionaires has never been collected previously. This report provides the first such compilation. What it reveals is sheer Washington stupidity with government policies pampering the wealthy costing taxpayers billions of dollars every year.[/blockquote]
What are we subsidizing exactly, and at what cost?

$74 million in unemployment checks.
$21 billion in gambling losses.
$9 billion in Social Security Retirement Benefits.
$316 million in farm subsidies.
$89 million for preservation of ranches and estates.
$75.6 million in residential energy tax credits.
$18.15 million in child care tax credits.
$16 million in government backed education loans to attend college.
$7.5 million to compensate for damages caused by emergencies to property that should have been insured.

"On average, each year, this report found that millionaires enjoy benefits from tax giveaways and federal grant programs totaling $30 billion."

Republicans have turned 'Socialism' into a dirty word and pinned it on Democrats and Democrats alone. And yet some of the most egregious socialistic policies have been championed by Republicans for decades.

Now that this report is out, why isn't anyone talking about it? We need to stop this bullshit of paying millionaires not to work. This is absurd.

[Timothy]

Not all millionaires do this though. Some do work!

[Mr. Roboto]

Lets not forget the flood insurance we subsidize for the wealthy home owners along the coasts and other flood plains too.

[artcinco]

Has anyone/everyone seen/read Tom Coburn's recently released report, "Subsidies of the Rich & Famous"?

I think someone I follow one Twitter tweets about it. ;-)

[artcinco]

Lets not forget the flood insurance we subsidize for the wealthy home owners along the coasts and other flood plains too.

And lots of working class and poor people in NOLA. Isn't the flood insurance program kind of socialist?

Would the solution be means testing for all government benefit programs? Would that be discriminatory?

If I made more money than my neighbor but we both live in the same flood risk area should I pay more than him for the same coverage?

[Mr. Roboto]

I think we (and when I say "we" I mean "republicans") need to realize that many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and it's not the end of the world. With this understanding would be the requirement to quit using it as a dirty word, it gets really old.

[artcinco]

I think we (and when I say "we" I mean "republicans") is that many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and it's not the end of the world. With this understanding would be the requirement to quit using it as a dirty word, it gets really old.

I didn't mean it as a dirty word, just to see if anyone would think it socialist as the word is defined.

It is all the balance between the individual and the collective. No one can exist in a vacuum but too much attention from the collective into our personal choices is also not a desired outcome.

GOP seems more individualistic overall whereas the Democrats seem more collective. There are plenty of areas where they are the opposite of this too.

I agree that giving millionaires government benefits that they could afford doesn't make sense but there is probably more to the story. Did they pay their premiums like everyone else or meet the programs requirements? Perhaps the programs are not configured optimally.

We just bailed out banks and car companies. The market is designed to have winners and losers. If there are no losers above a certain level than the system cannot function correctly. Now these "too big to fail" entities were bailed out because the consequences of letting them fail were deemed worse to everyone else. But by altering the rules of the game, people who play by them and still have to get upset. They form Tea Parties or occupy parks.

[Jill]

Lets not forget the flood insurance we subsidize for the wealthy home owners along the coasts and other flood plains too.

In the report. It's a fascinating read.

[Jill]

Lets not forget the flood insurance we subsidize for the wealthy home owners along the coasts and other flood plains too.

And lots of working class and poor people in NOLA. Isn't the flood insurance program kind of socialist?

Yes, it's socialist. The point is the denial by Republicans that the wealthy enjoy any form of socialism. They clearly do. Lots of it.

Would the solution be means testing for all government benefit programs? Would that be discriminatory?

Yes, means testing is the solution. It's the very solution Senator Coburn is calling for (remember, he's a staunch conservative Republican). These programs were meant to help those with little or limited means so they wouldn't fall into poverty. They're being taken advantage of by wealthy people who don't need them.

If I made more money than my neighbor but we both live in the same flood risk area should I pay more than him for the same coverage?

If you make more money and you live in the same flood plane and your neighbor can't afford insurance and you can but have refused to buy it so the government will have to bail you out? Yeah, you should be SOL on a government handout. It's called a safety net for a reason. Some need it and some don't.

Of course much of this could be resolved if we didn't have tax laws and employment/compensation laws that allow CEOs to make off with 100% of the profits while holding their laborers to 1965 wages.

[Jill]

Has anyone/everyone seen/read Tom Coburn's recently released report, "Subsidies of the Rich & Famous"?

I think someone I follow one Twitter tweets about it. ;-)

Do I know them?

[artcinco]

Has anyone/everyone seen/read Tom Coburn's recently released report, "Subsidies of the Rich & Famous"?

I think someone I follow one Twitter tweets about it. ;-)

Do I know them?

You have a lot in common. You'd like them.