Thread: Taxes?

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Theoretically, the government spends money on things that benefit everyone, for the common good.

Now take this theory and apply it to the woman from jockeys example.

Or to make the question more pointed, How does that woman by her presence contribute contribute anything that could be called good.

Also know that she "wasn't let down" by any system, she could have a mother who's living was earned the same way and probably is producing children who will earn their living the exact same way she is.

If you can find any "common good in that" you are a far more generous person than I.

I also lived near a welfare family, they got more per kid though because their offspring was brain damaged. I will admit though that they were more ambitious than Jockeys crackwhore the family I knew went out and got jobs, and three months later bought a house and new car then quit their jobs to go back on welfare again. You see they could make more with less effort being on welfare than working as long as they had two retarded kids but the needed jobs to get the credit to buy the house. It wasn't even like they were comparing welfare to minimum wage either she was a paralegal (how she knew the system) and he was a trained book keeper.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Now take this theory and apply it to the woman from jockeys example.

Or to make the question more pointed, How does that woman by her presence contribute contribute anything that could be called good.

Also know that she "wasn't let down" by any system, she could have a mother who's living was earned the same way and probably is producing children who will earn their living the exact same way she is.

If you can find any "common good in that" you are a far more generous person than I.

All I'm saying is that I refuse to believe that as a young child this woman's dream was to become a drug addict. Something happened to her between child-and-adult-hood which lead to that outcome. Of course she was let down by the system.

The "good" that could be found here is what a society does with people in these positions. What "good" is there in writing people off as no-good drug whores? Why isn't it better to try and get someone back into society so that they can start contributing again?

I also lived near a welfare family, they got more per kid though because their offspring was brain damaged. I will admit though that they were more ambitious than Jockeys crackwhore the family I knew went out and got jobs, and three months later bought a house and new car then quit their jobs to go back on welfare again. You see they could make more with less effort being on welfare than working as long as they had two retarded kids but the needed jobs to get the credit to buy the house. It wasn't even like they were comparing welfare to minimum wage either she was a paralegal (how she knew the system) and he was a trained book keeper.

Your welfare system is not means-tested? Here your assets are assessed when determining payment.

James.

I would say that the system isn't responsible for people ending up the way they are. If that was true, I would be working some dead end job at minimum wage right now with no place to go. Welfare works on technicalities, and as long as you fit under those technicalities, you can get it.

For instance, with education here, you're considered a dependent until you're 25, married, or in the military, even if you can prove independence and your parents don't claim you on taxes. There is no investigation or even attempts to check, they just go by the checklist. Welfare works the same way. No job+kids-father=paycheck in the mail.

There are people out there that really need it and that it really helps. There was a time a long time ago when my parents were on food stamps and really needed it. I was a new born, so my mom took care of me while my dad worked two jobs and went to night school. They made mistakes (me!), but they tried hard and needed a little help. Something that has stuck with me though is a conversation I had with my dad about 10 years ago: He said, "you know, it was embarrassing being on food stamps, but what got me was the amount they gave us. I've rarely eaten better in my life than when we had food stamps. We even told them that it was way too much money, but they made us take it. It was so much that we gave steak, shrimp, and lobster to people for Christmas." To me, that's as ****ed as it gets. Honest people tell you how much they need and the government gives them 5 times the amount and tells them it's either that or nothing.

Exactly Orange, I've got a friend who just had to quit his part time job because he lost his day job and if he had kept his part time job he wouldn't have been able to qualify for the unemployment he needs to keep his family fed. They could have reduced his benifit by the amount he made on the part time job or something, but its either all or nothing.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

All I'm saying is that I refuse to believe that as a young child this woman's dream was to become a drug addict. Something happened to her between child-and-adult-hood which lead to that outcome. Of course she was let down by the system.

The "good" that could be found here is what a society does with people in these positions. What "good" is there in writing people off as no-good drug whores? Why isn't it better to try and get someone back into society so that they can start contributing again?

Apparently you guys don't yet have multi-generational welfare families over there. Over here we do. There are girls in high school over here actually trying to get pregnant by the guys they think will support them and the kid, they just want the support they don't care about the guy or even want to marry him and these are teens.

Check this out:

WELFARE AND THE CULTURE OF POVERTY

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Your welfare system is not means-tested? Here your assets are assessed when determining payment.

James.

You can't qualify if you have means, but a place to live and one car per family are excepted from your assessment as they are considered basic needs no matter how nice they are.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

All I'm saying is that I refuse to believe that as a young child this woman's dream was to become a drug addict. Something happened to her between child-and-adult-hood which lead to that outcome. Of course she was let down by the system.
James.

let down by the system? since when is it the system's job to cover your screwups? she let herself down. we all make choices. we SHOULD all have to face consequences. your life is nobody's responsibility but your own. it's not like we live in africa with warlords and no economy. at any point in time, she could have walked down the street to mickey d's and gotten a job flipping burgers. welfare was just easier. you say the system let her down? if you mean it let her down by offering her an easy way out of a hard situation, which is evidently even more addictive than crack, they you're damn right the system let her down.

I mean, who WOULDN'T go for welfare? if I didn't have any decency, it'd be great to make a living without having to make a living, if you know what I mean.

The federal government in a federation should not be allowed to raise a tax from individual citizens. Income taxes, sales taxes, etc. should all be illegal.

Local governments should raise property and head taxes and pay for the federal government which they, as members of the federation, created. The federal and local governments should collect royalties on the natural resources for which they are responsible and user fees for services offered. Foreigners should pay a small fee upon entering and exiting the country, for services they may potentially take advantage of during their stay. Also, there ought to exist reviewed tariffs on certain imported products, especially those who's production or manufacture was subsidized in their country of origin. Finally, fines and corporal punishment instead of imprisonment for non-violent crimes should be the norm.

Tax exemptions should exist for the poor and needy, those that have taken vows of poverty, children and the elderly, the sick and especially sick war veterans, refugees, foreign diplomatic staff, etc. The tax burden should be small but still ought to rest on the shoulders of the strong.

Any potential surpluses should be returned to the people in the form of real cash.

Originally Posted by Whiggamore

The federal government in a federation should not be allowed to raise a tax from individual citizens. Income taxes, sales taxes, etc. should all be illegal.

Local governments should raise property and head taxes and pay for the federal government which they, as members of the federation, created. The federal and local governments should collect royalties on the natural resources for which they are responsible and user fees for services offered. Foreigners should pay a small fee upon entering and exiting the country, for services they may potentially take advantage of during their stay. Also, there ought to exist reviewed tariffs on certain imported products, especially those who's production or manufacture was subsidized in their country of origin. Finally, fines and corporal punishment instead of imprisonment for non-violent crimes should be the norm.

Tax exemptions should exist for the poor and needy, those that have taken vows of poverty, children and the elderly, the sick and especially sick war veterans, refugees, foreign diplomatic staff, etc. The tax burden should be small but still ought to rest on the shoulders of the strong.

Any potential surpluses should be returned to the people in the form of real cash.

Very true, all of it.

And what do you know......This is exactly what the founders set up in the first place.

It's amazing how badly things have been screwed up, and all in the last hundred years.

My problem with a federal sales tax as a replacement for the federal income tax is this: Let's say wage earners like Bill Gates or Rush Limbaugh make $500 million dollars in a particular year but decide to "sit it out" in terms of making any major purchases. So for a year they forgo buying any yachts, new cars, houses, large screen tv's etc and decide they are basically "content with their lot" for the year and only purchase basis necessities such a food, clothing, etc. Under that scenario they could end up paying the about same amount of taxes on their enormous earnings as the blue collar worker who has to spend most of his or her income just to make ends meet. That does not strike me as a fair system of taxation.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

That does not strike me as a fair system of taxation.

So you'd rather have a tax on people for their hard work than for their toy purchases?