Quote:
Originally Posted by Space_Coyote
Through the earned income credit and current tax system a person making $14k a year will not only qualify for federal and state living assistance, but also have 100% of their income taxes returned to them every year. They do NOT pay the same percentage because they don't make enough money to qualify for taxation.
|
And I think that's good. If you're making $14,000/year, you're spending every dime just to try to meet the basics. You likely don't qualify to have a house. So, we're agreed that there shouldbe at least some sort of poverty baseline.
Quote:
|
I agree, the poor, middle class, upper middle class, and mildly rich don't have the capacity to create off-shore accounts or launder their money, but why do you suppose the ultra-rich do that? Could it be because they're taxed heavily enough to piss them off to the point of moving their money out of the country? How does this help the domestic economy (that is, losing millions if not billions of dollars to offshore banks)?
|
Oh, now, I think any rich person that gets "pissed off" because of their high taxes is truly naive.
Everyone wants to keep as much for themselves as they can, it's only natural. The rich simplyhave more options for evading and avoiding, and for the rich to do so strikes me as rather contemptuous towards their duties as citizens.
And, no, it probably doesn't help the economy at all. I'd eliminate that capability. It's simply not equitable or morally right,in my opinion.
Quote:
|
You lost me right there. I am not an island unto myself and so I don't get to decide that all citizens should be taxed the same rate, but you are allowed to decide that you don't have a problem with social spending and unequal taxation?
|
No, no. What I was responding to was your comment that "why should
I have to...?", which is a common theme in these kinds of arguments (esp. against social spending). There's a very common defensive reflex that policies are somehow personal and punitive, and my point was that because we all together in a society, there are certain attendant responsibilities towards each other, if we're all going to function.
Quote:
|
You're right, we do live in a society, but the only obligation we have to it is to respect the rights of others and collectively pay for items of collective benefit (like fire trucks and roads). Anything beyond that is generosity, and state-coerced generosity is theft, plain and simple.
|
Possibly. But, that implies that people would pay taxes for what they think they use, voluntarily, and we both know that's laughable. Besides, the things governments do for us is relatively incalculable...the list of the benefits we reap is quite long, directly, and indirectly.
Quote:
|
Who's punishing them? I simply want them to pay the same percentage of their income that I do to pay for the services THEY use. It has nothing to do with malice, but has an awful lot to do with legal equality.
|
Again, how do you respond to the issue of 10% being more burdensome to the poor than the rich? What I argue is that the
impact isn't the same.
Also, I am not sold on the premise that
only poor people take advantage of social spending.
Quote:
|
I've never been on the public dole because I've been working since I was 15 and paying taxes since I was 16. I worked my way through college, got my commission, used my military benefits to pay for law school (I don't practice though, no money in it anymore), and now I work for a living to keep my wife (who also works her *** off) and I in the style to which we've become accustomed.
|
Admirable. I have done similarly. But, there's a danger in thinking that
everyone has the intelligence, industriousness, luck, and/or skills to succeed in this competitive system. For example, many people in N.O. are completely wiped out, with little choice but to seek assistance. Stuff happens. Especially, with a huge amount of folks living "paycheck to paycheck", it doesn't take much to tip them over. Those folks are my biggest concern, the ones who DO play by all the rules, but just can' seem to get over the hump.
Quote:
|
There is something wrong with a man's character when he can be "ok" with accepting public funds for his private use, and when you've got generations of people on public assistance, it demonstrates the total lack of effectiveness inherent in those programs aimed at "helping". You want to help the poor? Treat them as your equal, give them some self-esteem, and make them earn it like the rest of us.
|
We're getting way away from a tax argument, here.
Quote:
|
I'm in favor of private charitible contributions, I oppose STATE welfare programs. If you have to force people via taxation to be generous, then your society is no more altruistic than one in which the poor are starving in the street (though more legally unequal and potentially tyrannical).
|
I don't oppose them. I'd certainly rather my tax dollars go towards the poor, than further subsizing the rich.
What, I think, we
can agree on, are recent changes to the system that emphasizes training and education, as opposed to "handouts". Of course welfare should be conditional.
[quiote]
I make a point of giving away some of my good fortune every year (Dave Ramsey says its virtuous, I agree) but it's always to charities that benefit the sick, or the young. Sorry, grown men and women without handicap who made bad choices deserve neither help nor sympathy, they deserve a kick in the *** that their parents failed to provide. [/quote]
Ah, the "tough love" philosophy. Sounds self-righteously okay,but I am skeptical that the actual
results are particularly helpful.
To me, the whole point isn't to get off on shaming and laughing and feeling high and mighty by making others feel worthless and pathetic. That mightbe fun for a while, but I think the whole aim is to get people the assistance they need to get back in the game, and onto stable paths. If someone wants money to pay for daycare for their kid to enable them to go to school while still paying their bills and keepingtheir house and car, I am all for it.
It's one thing to tell someone to build a rocket, but if you don't provide any plans, instruction, and yes, some amount of money, I don;t think you'll have much luck.
I don't want to insult you, but your imperious, holier-than-thou, self-righteous tone really rankles me. I get the impression that you equate poverty with lack of character.
[quote
Hyperbole is not flattering sir. Since defaulting on one's debts is tantamount theft, I am torn on the reestablishment of the debtor's prison, but current bankruptcy laws are certainly far too liberal in their scope. If you borrow money, you must pay it back, period. [/quote]
I agree, in theory. If the poor weren't singled out far more for it than rich avoiders, I'd be less agitated.
Quote:
|
Indentured servitude should always remain legal as a right of association. Lest you forget, indentured servantitude is always voluntary (as involuntary servitude has another name).
|
I think, as a modern, wealthy, enlightened society, we can do a lot better than aspiring to 18th century goals and standards.