Quote:
Originally Posted by Skerlnik
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.
|
That's the point, they're not spending every dime just to get by, we are. Their income is not taxed, their food, shelter, and medicine are paid for, and thus the meager pay they accrue from employment is nearly all untaxed, unconsumed income. How about they either get a tax break, or welfare benefits, but not both? How does that sound?
Quote:
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.
|
I agree with your proposition, but you spoke of equality as if the rich have it, and are trying to somehow enhance it. They pay vastly disproportionate percentages of their incomes to the federal government, as well as capital gains taxes. Then they pay massive state income taxes (depending on states), huge property taxes, and because they buy more than us down here in middle class land, ultimately pay more in sales tax (but who cares, nobody is focing them to buy, I'm just making a point).
You can't blame the rich for hiding their wealth when the governments that surround them are constantly trying to take it away. Make the system more equitible and then I think you and I can be on the same page regarding this matter.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I disagree fundamentally with the premise of positive rights because they imply that another person has a higher claim to your labor, time, and property than you do. Negative rights however dictate that as a society we pledge NOT to do certain things for/to each other (like laws against murder, rape, fraud, etc). Since I contend the appropriate role of the individual in a society is based on the premise of negative rights, I reject any notion of state-sponsored (coerced) welfare as an improper use of state authority. Thus (since we're straying off the map of tax code I'll bring us back) the state (meaning government of any level) is literally taxing the rich not only for the essential government functions of police, fire, and roads but also for the subsidizing of the lives of those people who do not have a single dollar of their incomes invested in the society to which they have a duty. This idea you've put forth thus only further segregates the poor from the rest of us and makes it even more difficult for substantive solutions to poverty (if they exist) to be developed.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Not necessarily. State coercive power (taxation) is justified given programs that are: a) legal/constitutional and b) demonstrably beneficial to the majority of the populace. Welfare-type programs satisfy the former (sometimes) but not the latter, as no demonstrable societal benefit can be gleaned from social spending. Police and Fire departments and roads however have demonstrable societal benefits from stopping riots, to putting out the Chicago fire, to allowing the flow of commerce into a locality.
Quote:
|
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.
|
It's irrelevant. Using that rationale, vehicle registration should be cheaper for the poor, and driving license fees, speeding tickets, medical bills, and all manner of expense should be lowered or raised relative to income. Would you favor laws mandating a grocer to sell oranges at $1/lb to a poor man and $100/lb to a rich man? We are all equals under the law, and if we want to maintain a society that at least APPEARS to be a democratic republic, we would do well to maintain such a situation.
I intend to finish this shortly, good lively discussion, but I have an appointment with my barber during my lunch break that I desperately need to keep (it's too hot for thick hair). To be Continued....
Quote:
Also, I am not sold on the premise that only poor people take advantage of social spending.
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.
We're getting way away from a tax argument, here.
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.
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.
|
I agree, in theory. If the poor weren't singled out far more for it than rich avoiders, I'd be less agitated.
I think, as a modern, wealthy, enlightened society, we can do a lot better than aspiring to 18th century goals and standards.[/quote]