Originally Posted by Snuff
The people that make more than I do are paying taxes. A lot of taxes. A majority of the taxes. One thing I think we can both agree on is that the economy's health is not just soley a tax issue. I mentioned welfare and you mentioned medicare and social security. I do think that we have an obligation to help others that truely need it, but there are way too many people using and abusing the system at others tax expense.
Its true that people abuse programs, but thats why we have investigators and clerks who do research. These people are actively sought out by the police. I dont think the majority or a significant amount of people are abusing the system enought to cause a severe setback to our national economy. Still, if money is being taken out of your check for these programs, then you are entitled to receive benefits.
No I don't don't agree with health benefits(medicare/medicaide) for every numbnut who just won't pay health insurance premiums.
Benefits are not taken care of by the govt, they are subsidized by your employer. If you had to pay 100% of your premium, you would jump off a skyscraper roof because you wouldnt be able to afford anything else. Thats how it is in CA, I dont know about everywhere else though.
I do agree that people who are disabled congenitally or by some bad turn of events deserve our support. I do not feel that I owe people who make poor choices in life anything. ( mothers who decide to become sexually active and have 5 kids by the age of 22, high school drop outs that deal drugs, the guy who was laid off from his job for coming to work drunk and used what little money he had to by alcohol and ciggerettes instead of paying for health insurance) the list goes on.
Again, if you pay for these services out of your check, then you are entitled to them when you need them. A young mother needs help more than most people, and if you and others wont let her have an abortion, then maybe here is a justification as to why she should have that option. But in this case, she chose to keep the child, she needs help and if she pays for these benefits every two weeks like everyone else, then I feel like shes entitled to them. You cannot selectively determine who can and who cannot receive a claim becaused you think they mad a bad decision in life. If someone is abusing the system, they get caught and punished. I still dont think people who abuse the system cause a significant hit to our numbers, but I'm sure it is alot of money. You dont get laid off for coming in drunk, you get fired. Getting laid off and fired are two completely different things.
It is not our responsibility to support all the baby boomers who can't take care of themselves. Social security is owed to the older folks because they have paid into it. The problem is that it is now so top heavy that it won't work. I do not expect to see a penny of my ss benefits when I retire. So yes , I am all for axing social security if an alternative can be found for the existing retirees. The responsibility lies on us know to plan for our own retirements and not have to rely on the government. That would make SS unneccessary.
Correct, but we had a surplus at the start of 2001, Clinton had set aside an estimated $238M for social security alone. During the 2000 campaing both Bush and Gore supported the idea of using a 'lockbox,' or setting a certain amount of the budget for SS so that the funds could not be reapportioned elsewhere. But, after Bush's inaguration, he used $480M (including the $238M for SS to fund basic federal operations. But again, people depend on SS to make ends meet. They paid for it, they should be entitled to its benefits. It isnt their fault the country is in financial difficulties, its the spenders and the people who make the budget who are responsible for ensuring our financial security.
The whole burden of funding the federal government should not just fall on the hands of the wealthier people in this country. I would like a flat tax also as a fairness issue,but then we would lose massive funding for the goverment and talking about creating deficits.In closing, the issue is much more complex than either of us are saying but I do support tax cuts for the rich because they simple pay most of the taxes period.
Yes they do pay more because they make more. What is the purpose of heavily taxing the lower and middle classes to poverty??
I can't really speak specifically on how things differed under Clinton. I was in a totally differnt financial situation then. I do know one thing, when I got married I payed more taxes even though I now had another person to support. Now I get a tax credit for my child biggrin:
|
