Should we end welfare for the rich?

Six figure welfare is insane. That is really not fair to the taxpayers at all. Yes I do think this should be eliminated thats crazy. People are out here breaking thier necks trying to make 5 figuers and they are giving out more for welfare? Thats really sad.

"millionaires don't need Social Security checks" So what you're saying is that you just want Social Security to be another form of welfare that the rich pay into so others can mooch off the government? That's a load of crap. The government FORCES people to pay into SS with the promise that they'll get it back when they retire. Now we all know that it's just a Ponzi scheme, but a lot of people still live under this misconception that they are paying into something that will reward them later. Why don't they deserve to get that money back? What entitles other people to THEIR money? You know as well as I do that they are paying way more into it than poor people. Refusing to let them enjoy it when they retire is just another example of wealth redistribution. They should NOT be punished or robbed for being successful. "mortgage deductions on Yachts" I don't know anything about this, but it sounds ridiculous. Ok, just read up on it and yes, it should end. "the government to subsidize their homes when natural disasters hit (that is what insurance is for)" I agree with you 100% on this. The government doesn't subsidize damage to my personal property and they shouldn't do it for millionaires either. "government back education loans" I have no problem with them taking out loans that they pay back appropriately. A loan is a loan, not welfare. Here's a few other things. "gambling losses, business expenses, electric vehicle credits and even child care tax credits." The gambling losses bit is scarey, but I know it's done quite frequently. some people have actually made a business of BUYING lotteries where they wait till the jackpot reaches a certain amount, and then buy enough tickets to nearly guarantee a win. They then get to write off the losing tickets as business expenses. Big businesses should still be able to write off business expenses just like small businesses. They may want to put a cap on how much you can write off, but I don't think it should be eliminated entirely or you're just discouraging the growth of private business. I don't see any reason to disallow electric vehicle credits and child care tax credit for the wealthy. They have children and have to pay just as much, if not more, for child care. I would support ending electric vehicle tax credits, but I want it ended for everyone, not just the wealthy.

From a class warfare standpoint, it sounds to right to take from the wealthy. Yet, it is the wealthy that create jobs (except when the government intervenes). A better question: Is it time to take welfare away from the poor that are able to work. Too many people (almost all are democrats) are just like leaches living off of other people's money.

First of all, tax deductions and credits are not "welfare", so when we talk about "welfare" for the rich, or "corporate welfare", let's stick with what the terms actually mean. I have no problem with tax deductions, or tax credits. If the people who run a business feel that they are better off with a private jet then that should be a legitimate tax deduction like any other business decision. If the yacht qualifies, then sure, why not? It is just plain dishonest and corrupt to say that "The rich" shouldn't be eligible for social security. Nothing about the Social Security act says anything about whether the recipient "needs" the money or not. The government takes the payments, so it owes the pay out when the person becomes eligible. If there are mortgage deductions why shouldn't "the rich" be eligible for them also? It would be nothing short of discrimination for the government to exclude the rich, simply because bigots hate them. But I'll agree with you that there is "welfare" for the rich, and "corporate welfare", and it shouldn't be happening. Of course the taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for someone whose property was destroyed by a natural disaster simply because that person chose not to buy insurance. FEMA's original charter didn't even have provisions to replace private property. The purpose of FEMA was to help cities, counties and states rebuild their infrastructure when an emergency became a disaster. Another example of this kind of welfare are the bailouts and "stimulus packages". They are blatant welfare, and should be ended. So you have to decide something here. Is it really the welfare you hate, or just "the rich"?

So, what add an income requirement taxed on to Social Security along with an age requirement? Is this fair or is this discriminatory? If they pay into Social Security with their money, shouldn't they get it back when they retire? Government shouldn't be subsidizing Natural disasters anyway. That's the job of insurance. Yet, for some crazy reason, the Federal Government decide that flood insurance is a must in certain areas. So, many people have to add that particular line item to their home policies regardless of how much their home is worth. Then there is FEMA. I really don't need to go into that one... What's if a person lived on a yacht instead of in a house? Wouldn't that technically be a deduction on a mortgage? The saving son mortgage deductions for yachts wouldn't really be that big. Granted it is more revenue and not really opposed to it, but you would have to clearly define the line for when a yacht turns into a home. The claim on government backed education loans is confusing. The people who have them are mostly lower to middle class people. Sure, a few rich people probably have them but they still are loans that have to be paid back. So, technically loaning money to the "super rich" is a safer loan because there is the means to get the money back. This is not really an idea that would "save" but would "generate revenue" because the Government still collects interest on these loans. I think the math is wrong on this one. I would have to look up the Yacht deduction numbers. Figuring out the amount on the Natural disasters is a little iffy. It would depend on the average home income that the figures are calculated on. But technically, it is a requirement that home owners have insurance. Flood insurance is the major Government subsidized program. You would have to negate Social Security savings because it "technically" isn't the Government's money even though they keep spending like it is. The net "savings" on Government backed education loans wouldn't make much sense because they would be making more by handing out these loans to people who could pay them back. I am thinking the only real savings would be more in the millions range. I am probably overestimating it at little. Someone got a bit lop-sided with their numbers.

I've always felt that people should have the right to opt out of Social Security and Medicare if they don't want to pay into it. They're both failed programs, anyway.

No one should get loans based on their income or their ethnic background or race. The millionaires who pay into Social SEcurity should get it when they reach 65 biut and this is what we do in Canada, they really do not need it and it should be clawed back in taxes. The rich should take out insurance on their homes and businesses, and that is just common sense. Of course, I believe except in the case of the real poor, that everyone in America should pay taxes. And from what I read or see on TV this is not so. There are deductions that are logical such as charity and to start businesses they should apply to everyone. I do not want to start a class war nor do I want to start a race war.