Arlynda got me thinking and I'm so impressed with her tax knowledge and understanding! I try to understand it but I swear my mind just doesn't work like a taxer person:). She made good points and I don't think there is a perfect solution at all. What is fair?
Good points on questioning what is even fair. I guess fair to me would be a percentage of an income with tax breaks for the lowest, but there would be a lot of determining factors in that bracket. It would only be for people legal working age and up though, not children. I don't know what I think about all the small businesses and how to tax them, I just know that my parents are now worried about the 2 employees they have with their small business because under this new tax plan, it will be really hard to afford to keep them on even though they need the help. I don't know enough there.
I think Vicki had a good idea about taxing non-essentials or luxury items. What seems to me in my non-tax-understanding-mind would be to do a percentage of income tax plus higher taxes on luxury items--which could vary from the small and simple less-needed things to the 2nd and 3rd homes. ? I haven't thought much about that, any thoughts on that?
And one last thought on fairness. Is it fair to be poor? I'd say no, but I also don't think it's a right to not be poor. We have a right to the pursuit of happiness, but like the movie says, you aren't gauranteed happiness. I guess I feel the same about poverty. Don't get me wrong, I think efforts should be made to help people get out of poverty, programs, education, whatever. I've seen some of the worlds poorest people and my heart goes out to them and I will always be thinking about solutions and ways to help because it isn't fair, but I think since it's not a right we can guarantee as a country, that should be taken care of more from an individuals desire to good how they see fit.
As a general rule...
Along with having seen a lot of this country and a little of a few others, I think others would agree that the poorest people in general are elsewhere and if I have extra money, I'd rather it go to the people in need of life-sustaining help rather than nicer-to-haves in our country.
Welfare
I think those who genuinely need gov't assistance to sustain life should get it, but I think the welfare system needs a major overhaul and new requirements to show or require doing something about a person's circumstances if they're able. I was on medicaid when I was pregnant with Hazel because we were students and I didn't have health insurance. We of course couldn't find anyone but medicaid to take me on. After having Hazel, I called to cancel it.
I still can't believe the response.
The lady was pushing me to keep it! I explained to her a few times that my husband had a job he was starting soon and we didn't need it and she kept reminding me I could have it at least another year or something and then could reapply. I reminded her my husband was getting a job. She informed me that even so, if I was unemployed, I was still eligible for all sorts of things. If I didn't think she was insane it might have sounded pretty good!
Maybe she was concerned for us not being able to pay for the baby and being too proud to take assistance, I don't know, I'm sure there are those out there. It just seemed crazy to try to keep someone on assistance when they wanted to get on their own. I've heard similar stories.
I've also witnessed a lot of abuse of the system while living in NYC and the entitlement mentality which drove me nuts. On the other hand, I've witnessed great financial struggles from people I know well and the hard times they've endured from it and deciding how to get milk. Like Arlynda said, there isn't an easy way to pick and choose who really needs it.
One of my beefs with the system is that it doesn't seem to encourage any kind of self-reliance or improvement or deadlines of when you have to apply for jobs or schools, etc. It's just SO easy to get and stay on and I've seen it deteriorate people's spirits because they stop trying for themselves.
8 comments:
Hey Afton... interesting posts! But I wanted to ask you-- did you guys go to Law School in NYC?
Do you have my email, if there is anything you don't understand you can ask, I'll try to explain it. I was just trying to get out as much information as possible, so things aren't explained as well as they could be.
Funny, John and I were just talking about this last night. . .we both just expect to pay taxes and to pay more the more we make. That seems fair to us. After paying taxes in Ireland when we lived there, we're happy to pay what is expected here (much less). Interesting about Medicaid.
I've been trying to work out how to say this so that it sounds right. I don't think that it is a "right" not be poor. I do however believe that is it a right to not have your economic situation limit your choices to the point that your basic freedoms are in jeopardy. Throughout history the poor have been oppressed, and even in America it is possible that they can be. For instance during the Gilded Age. Which came about legally (mostly), under Capitalistic principles, and not in violation of the Constitution.
Afton asked me to share a couple of thoughts on this topic. I don't intend to spark debate, but to foster reflection and discussion:
1) The chief problem I see with state-run welfare is the spiritual/emotional toll it imposes on those who cannot or do not resist abuse of the system. Speaking as someone who only recently became a bread-winner, my sense of self-worth would be eviscerated in short order were I ever forced to accept a handout (I don't claim to have the character of the title role in Cinderella Man, but I certainly relate to his distaste for the dole).
I consider easy, no-conditions state welfare to be a tragic temptation--the more pernicious because it is presented to those who likely have the least capacity to resist it.
2) I applaud those who, like you, Arlynda, are happy to support those less fortunate with a portion of your hard-earned money. Americans in general are exceptionally generous, as they should be, and I hope that never changes (http://nigeria.usembassy.gov/pr_06272007.html). For the religious among us, financial charity for the disadvantaged was a commandment repeatedly emphasized by the Savior, after all. That being said, I see no moral mandate for state-run welfare. In the first place, the government will likely not agree with me regarding how those scarce assets should be allocated, so I would prefer to have some say in how that money is spent. Second, government bureaucracies are notoriously inefficient and abusive, so the resources allocated will not go as far in the government's hands. Third, I simply object to compelled generosity.
That last point requires a little explanation. Under a bloated, well-funded government, it is easy to forget that when someone's need is satisfied by the government's coffers, it is actually coming from the pocket of the recipient's neighbor. For the sake of clarity, imagine mandatory welfare in a society without currency, advanced technology or government bureaucracy. If Joe cannot provide for his family, someone must help him make ends meet. His neighbor, Jack, might choose to spend a few extra hours hunting in order to find food for Joe's family as well, and that would be natural, well and good. Would it be good, however, to compel Jack to do so? Even if Jack is healthy and able to provide for Joe's needs, compelling Jack to work amounts to forced servitude. Does Joe's need trump Jack's freedom? If so, does the answer change if Joe's need is partially self-imposed?
(We don't think twice about paying our taxes, of course, but the fact that welfare money goes through the intermediary of the state does not alter the fact that welfare results in forced labor. Salaries make this more difficult to appreciate, since most of us cannot choose to work a few extra hours for a little extra pay, but in the end, you are paid for your time, so when someone takes your money, they take the time you spent to earn it.)
Again, for the Christians in the group, I do not believe compulsory alms are called for by the scriptures. I agree that not enough of us are living up to the mandate to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, but I don't believe Christ had a welfare state in mind when he commanded his followers to care for their neighbors. Moreover, agency is the defining feature of the Plan of Salvation, and restrictions on that agency should be weighed carefully, especially if they prevent people from choosing to do good independently. Finally, while I would never intend to diminish the reality and the horror of desperate need (let alone imply that we should not do everything we can to alleviate it), in the end of ends, we will discover that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. In other words, if a particular form of welfare alleviates some temporal suffering but wreaks even minimal spiritual damage, I'm not sure the beneficiaries of the temporal assistance will ultimately be glad they received it.
3) One last point: it seems that today, not many people fundamentally disagree with the concept of state welfare--to be honest, I'm not sure whether or not I do completely, despite the foregoing. But those of us who at least take issue with state-run welfare are not all heartless money-grubbers. Rather, we are optimistic that a more responsible and responsive system of welfare is possible, and would willingly give more than the government is currently taking to institutions in which we have more confidence. Families, friends, communities and foundations can and should be alternatives to a mandatory tax-and-spend government welfare state.
(I highly recommend Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged to anyone looking for a rigorous defense of capitalism and a philosophical look at entitlements)
Compliments of Melanie Curtis, here is a link to a talk by Elder Romney that says some of what I was feebly attempting to say above:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3ec0fd758096b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Afton I'm still blown away by the medicade response! It blows me away-like its a black whole of wealth we can continuously dip into with no accountability, whethere the money is there or not...or wait, maybe that's how it IS here!! I'm glad you let her know how you felt about it.
Claritan D Drug Change
http://www.elliotforcongress.com/ - generic propecia without prescription
Side effects are sexual, but if you do experience them all that you need to do is to stop taking the drug.
[url=http://www.elliotforcongress.com/]generic propecia finasteride[/url]
Post a Comment