Quote:
Originally Posted by Space_Coyote
How about they either get a tax break, or welfare benefits, but not both? How does that sound?
|
Maybe I could agree to that.
One social program that I think would be of immense benefit would be some sort of day care system. No idea what the details would be but anything that could enable young mothers to go to school and/or work is a good thing for everyone, in my book.
Overall, much like my views on education and health care, it's all about smarter spending, not necessarily less (or even more). If we're all able to reap tangible benefits, I think there's be less arguments about this stuff.
Quote:
|
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).
|
Quite true. And when they pay it, that's great. When you've reaped disproportionately more benefit, you pay more in taxes to pay for it. Simple.
It's not like I'm advocating for a salary cap....... (although the idea intrigues me....hmm.....)
Quote:
|
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.
|
I think if we got rid of
all the dodges, and made corporations pay what they truly owe, as well, things would be greatly improved, I agree.
I dimly recall reading somewhere that GE ended up paying about $100,000 in taxes one year. Tell me
that's fair! We're killing ourselves with corporate giveaways, cities compete to NOT tax companies, and we allow them to skip out and outsource. The corporations are who REALLY need some reigning in, here.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Hmm.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I see what you mean, now. I'll have to think about that. But, as you know, I am certainly more autocratic than you are, and am primarily concerned with ends more so than means.
Unless and until we can actually determine what our taxes get spent on, this is all just talk, anyway. I may not like my taxes going over to Iraq, and I'd much rather it be spent on a fellow American, but it's not like we can control that.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Excellent points. I think we're looking at it from very different angles.
My basic question, then, is, what to do about poverty, assuming that in our capitalistic system, there will ALWAYS be winners and losers, by definition? I see your point about the institutionalization of a poverty cycle.
I do applaud recent reforms to conditionalize the welfare system.
Quote:
|
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.
|
That's at least an arguable point. Social spending isn't just direct, actual "welfare".
Quote:
|
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 wouldn't go
that far. And, I think we've agreed that there should be at least SOME level where one doesn't pay taxes, period.
Maybe taxes are simply something that is going to be inherently "unfair" to some degree. If so, I'd rather err on the side of those who can best absorb it.