PLEASE DON'T FLAME ME .... but

[Babette]

I've really been waiting to ask this question and have been terrified to start a riot. *smiles*

Why are people so afraid of the term "spreading the wealth" or "sharing the wealth?" I *honestly* don't understand why it's wrong for someone who's doing very well to have to pay a bit more in taxes than someone who is struggling.

As a nation, I think everyone can agree that we need services for the good of all and those services have to paid somehow. Why would we want to ask people that are struggling to pay into the system as much as (or more in terms of percentages) than those that are financially secure? If those people are struggling and we keep taking more and more ... it seems to me at some point we're going to break these people.

So, I'd really like to understand where those people are coming from that state they are afraid of this type of "distribution" of wealth. Although, as I understand it - it's simply about taxes. Even Warren Buffet says the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes ... so, I'm really trying to understand this.

[Sorashell]

I think primarily because the United States is a predominantly Capitalist society and the tenets we hold dear as a nation have to do with working hard and being able to achieve anything. That's why so many people want to come here, right? Land of opportunity and all that...

I don't have a problem spreading the wealth to people that are struggling temporarily, but I have a real problem when I think of my tax dollars going to someone who is just living off the govt. teat, so to speak. Think of it like grade point average for a minute...

Student A works their butt off and studies all the time, pays attention in class, does all the extra credit they can and pull off a 4.0 GPA

Student B smokes pot at lunch time, rarely bothers to turn in homework, doesn't go to class half the time and is subsequently failing out of school.

Let's just take a few points of Student A's GPA and spread the wealth of it to Student B, then everyone is happy, right? Or maybe Student A is going to get tired of busting their hump so student B can slide by.

I may have a simplistic view of this but that's my .02 FWIW

[vegaschristina]

What about Student C who isn't smoking pot, turning in homework but still struggling. Is it wrong then, to ask Student A to assist the student who is struggling? Is it ok, then for Student A to tell Student C that I'll help you if you try to help yourself.

I'm currently taking classes in Anatomy & Physiology. They are the hardest classes I've ever undertaken and I'm working my behind off. The grades I earn, I earn honestly. I pass, I fail, I've earned my grade. However, is it wrong of me to seek out tutoring when I need help? Is it wrong for those in my class who are doing better than me to assist me in my understanding? I'm not asking them to give me the answers, just to help me understand.

Each of us who is for a little of the "spreading the wealth" isn't happy with those who are abusing the system. Personally, I feel that those who abuse the system should be made to pay back the system and be prosecuted for their abuses.

In the same vein, asking those of us who are doing better financially to give more to society to assist those who are doing poorly, not those who are looking for a way to cheat the system, isn't a bad thing. We're not asking those better off to give me money so I can sit on my behind. Give me a hand-up so I can do better for myself and my family.

ETA: Currently I've got an 82 in A&P!!! :yahoo

[clikchic]

Just a thought... there are plenty of people out there who work their butts off and earn very little, who struggle to make ends meet. Or do people like that not exist in the USA? They sure do in Australia.

[Sorashell]

What about Student C who isn't smoking pot, turning in homework but still struggling. Is it wrong then, to ask Student A to assist the student who is struggling? Is it ok, then for Student A to tell Student C that I'll help you if you try to help yourself.

I don't have a problem spreading the wealth to people that are struggling temporarily. And I really don't have a problem with someone getting help that is trying to help them self. There are, however, a lot of people that don't take initiative or responsibility and are content with handouts.

I'm currently taking classes in Anatomy & Physiology. They are the hardest classes I've ever undertaken and I'm working my behind off. The grades I earn, I earn honestly. I pass, I fail, I've earned my grade. However, is it wrong of me to seek out tutoring when I need help? Is it wrong for those in my class who are doing better than me to assist me in my understanding? I'm not asking them to give me the answers, just to help me understand.
Absolutely not, but we're not talking about tutoring. In this analogy we're talking about doling out someone else's GPA. How would you feel about the govt. taking (not asking...taking) your 82 in A&P and giving 20% of it to a few other students who really need it. Would you be the least bit resentful? Would you work as hard in your next class if you knew the same thing was going to happen?

I'm really just playing devil's advocate here as I can see both sides of the coin.

[Sorashell]

Just a thought... there are plenty of people out there who work their butts off and earn very little, who struggle to make ends meet. Or do people like that not exist in the USA? They sure do in Australia.
Was that a sincere question or sarcasm? Of course there are people here who struggle to make ends meet. We're a family that does that. But if what we're doing isn't working for us we can pursue other options of employment, right? Get a higher education, start a business, change jobs, rebudget... Why would I want to continue doing the same thing?

I should say as a disclaimer that I'm a little invested in the trickle down theory (that hasn't been proven to work) because it's supported our livelihood these many years. My husband is a contractor and his clients are the super wealthy, and if they eschew their discretionary spending on their homes, we're screwed.

[clikchic]

Was that a sincere question or sarcasm? Of course there are people here who struggle to make ends meet. We're a family that does that. But if what we're doing isn't working for us we can pursue other options of employment, right? Get a higher education, start a business, change jobs, rebudget... Why would I want to continue doing the same thing?

I should say as a disclaimer that I'm a little invested in the trickle down theory (that hasn't been proven to work) because it's supported our livelihood these many years. My husband is a contractor and his clients are the super wealthy, and if they eschew their discretionary spending on their homes, we're screwed.

That was a sincere question, some of you seemed to be overlooking the fact that not everyone who has difficulty making ends meet takes advantage of other people. There are many 'battlers' as they a commonly called here who work very very hard, but never seem to really get ahead.

And not every battler has an opportunity to do any better, there are a lot of factors that come into play, they may not be able to afford further education, they may enjoy their job, just not the pay, there may not be better opportunities where they live.

Those people cannot afford to pay more tax.

[lunafaerie]

I should say as a disclaimer that I'm a little invested in the trickle down theory (that hasn't been proven to work) because it's supported our livelihood these many years. My husband is a contractor and his clients are the super wealthy, and if they eschew their discretionary spending on their homes, we're screwed.

But what if your husband found more clients, with less means, who also needed a contractor? If the middle class has more discretionary funding, would your husband benefit from that?

[Rita (Blue Flower Art)]

What percentage of tax are you paying in the US?

is this it?

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

[Gina.Maria]

I'm so tired of discussions like this. It makes my heart hurt. People struggle every day, kids go to sleep hungry while their parents cry with worry over how to pay the rent and take turns working around the clock to keep their family treading water. They can't get anywhere because it takes money to make a dramatic change like re-education or a job change. The amount of time between last paycheck and first paycheck can break some families.

I've read several arguments here that private charities are the best way to give these families a helping hand and that families show greater appreciation and work harder to get out of poverty when they see the giver face-to-face. I'd like to address that.

Private charities have a great deal of overlap and tend to ignore a great many of the population and, in fact, target families already receiving public assistance with their programs.

My in-laws worked at a step-up type housing program where abused women and homeless families had a temporary place to live without being separated (as some shelters do) and we arranged to "adopt" a family for their Christmas meal. On Christmas Eve, we arrived at their home to deliver their turkey, a pan to cook it in, everything (including spices) needed to have a complete traditional meal plus treats and extras for the days following. It was difficult for us to scrape up the money to afford this but we sacrificed because we felt it was important.

This family already had a complete meal, provided by the local food bank, several brand-new bikes under the tree (despite the quite decent bikes parked in the driveway), presents piled high and more people on the way later in the day to provide more for them. They barely glanced at us and never once expressed thanks, talking with my Mother-In-Law about all the different agencies (all private) that were giving them food, gifts and money and how they'd be going to return some of the gifts for cash after the holiday. I was disgusted. Not so much with the family because I understand how desperate their lives were before they came to live there (eating out of garbage cans wasn't beneath them) but with the private charity system that was so lazy that all they did was prey upon the welfare rolls to find their charity cases and then "dump" their booty without regard for how many other organizations were doing the same. There's just one reason that a single source of social charity makes sense. When the goal is significantly different (i.e. Make-A-Wish Foundation, Ronald McDonald House, etc.) I think the private charities and foundations are excellent examples of positive assistance but so many others are just duplicating efforts.

I don't know what the answer is but punishing children for their parents' poor decisions, misfortune or failings isn't the answer.

[Hollie]

What about Student C who isn't smoking pot, turning in homework but still struggling. Is it wrong then, to ask Student A to assist the student who is struggling? Is it ok, then for Student A to tell Student C that I'll help you if you try to help yourself.



I think the main problem is that student A would be forced to do so (not asked), and student A would prefer to do it by choice. Maybe student A is being told to give assistance to student C by using a certain teaching method s/he thinks is not effective, and would prefer to do something else that s/he thinks is a more productive use of everyone's time and will help student C better in the long run. And it appears that it is not really just student A assisting student C to get a better grade, but that student A, in the process, would be required to actually *lower* his/her grade to do it. Why not just simply get a lower grade to begin with, then? In this analogy, those--I think--are the ideas/theories.

Anyhow, with all that said, I think I am going to take a closer look at the fair tax Jen has been talking about. It's not, obviously, this simple:) The analogy doesn't really account for things like tax shelters, for one.

[froggypond]

I have a big problem with the fact that the wealthy STAY wealthy, the poor has little or no chance, and the working class seems to be the ones who do all the work. I personally feel there should be a straight percentage tax. You make $x...and you pay %x on that money ... period ... done. no "tax breaks", write offs, etc. That way, EVERYONE would know where they stand financially. I believe it would give incentive to those people who are struggling, working two or more jobs just to stay afloat ... at least they would know the government was not going to take their hard earned money, and be able to invest in the economy and their future. I find it almost "embarrassing" that (in the US) the rich are "allowed" to "whine" about loosing a few hundred thousand dollars, when their are people living on the streets through no fault of their own. Maybe instead of "bailing out" those who have already screwed up and mismanaged their funds, the government could have "bailed out" the citizens by "giving" us money to buy food, clothing and shelter. I am so tired of the AIG kind of shenigans.

[Kim2002]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Obama's concept.....but I interpreted it to be that he was taking from the rich and giving to the poor like Robinhood.

Do the working poor even pay taxes here? I remember back when I was younger and making under $35k per year, I would file my tax form and get all that I paid in back as a refund. I never owed anything. Only now, as a business owner, am I having to pay tax every year. And, believe me, my business is not even earning $15k per year and yet I'm still paying tax.

Anyway, to give the working poor a handout from the rich seems, to me, to be another form of social welfare. If you want to give the working poor more assistance, do that through social programs funded by generous supporters (private charities, church groups, etc.). It seems counterproductive to force the rich to give the handouts when these same people are the ones who create the jobs and other amenities so that the working class can earn a living. I get the impression that if the rich are forced to give up more in tax, then they have less incentive to grow their own wealth. So maybe they spend down their wealth so that they don't have to pay the tax. Then what?

[Tiffikat]

Personally and I'll probably get flamed for saying this but I truly believe that greed rules American society. Greed is what a capitalist society is about in my opinion.

At my school I AM student A. I work very hard and I am about to graduate next month with a 4.0. That doesn't mean I don't want to see student B or C do just as well if they could. In fact I've tried each term to find a way to help people doing not as well, regardless of why they weren't doing as well. I help people in my classes and I even donated time to the tutoring center (where most people get paid to work but I just felt that the money wasn't as important).

A few terms ago a professor asked me to help another student in the class that was struggling. Now while she asked I got the distinct impression that she expected me to say yes, which I did. I wasn't at all upset that this help was expected from me. If I'm doing so well in a class what is it going to hurt me to help someone else do well also? Now I don't have a lot of extra time so I just adjusted my time to help this student study and used that as my study time at the same time.

If it were about giving a few points of my GPA I just can't imagine being that upset about that either as long as I had what I needed to continue on in school. I see money being the same way. If you have more than enough to get by and can get yourself all of those extras is it really so bad to have someone say, how about helping out this program or person. Isn't it a good feeling to help someone else? Even if you feel it is expected rather than asked? I know it always has been for me.

[HLWalter725]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Obama's concept.....but I interpreted it to be that he was taking from the rich and giving to the poor like Robinhood.

Do the working poor even pay taxes here? I remember back when I was younger and making under $35k per year, I would file my tax form and get all that I paid in back as a refund. I never owed anything. Only now, as a business owner, am I having to pay tax every year. And, believe me, my business is not even earning $15k per year and yet I'm still paying tax.

Anyway, to give the working poor a handout from the rich seems, to me, to be another form of social welfare. If you want to give the working poor more assistance, do that through social programs funded by generous supporters (private charities, church groups, etc.). It seems counterproductive to force the rich to give the handouts when these same people are the ones who create the jobs and other amenities so that the working class can earn a living. I get the impression that if the rich are forced to give up more in tax, then they have less incentive to grow their own wealth. So maybe they spend down their wealth so that they don't have to pay the tax. Then what?

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding and listening to the McCain slam ads. Obama's plan is merely to return the richest tax bracket to their original tax percentage before Bush's tax cuts. He also wants to close the loopholes that allows these richest of American society from wiggling out of even paying the amount they are supposed to because they can afford better accountants than the rest of us.

The Obama plan will keep the same or cut taxes on 90% of families, and the remaining 10% are people who are wealthy and received many tax breaks under the Bush administration.

And its not all about taking from the rich to give to the poor. The current administration has left us with an incredible budget deficit. The war is costing billions and this money needs to be repaid. So its not just about funding charitable giving and welfare, but also funding other American programs such as the last 7 years of wars.

[FrenchRuby]

It seems counterproductive to force the rich to give the handouts when these same people are the ones who create the jobs and other amenities so that the working class can earn a living.

That struck me as a very odd way of looking at it.

The rich create jobs and other amenities so that working class folks can earn a living. That's nice of them, isn't it?

Hardly, the working class work to make money for business owners. They have to, because if they didn't they would starve. But make no mistake, 'jobs' are not there for the charitable benefit of the working class, they are there because they make money for the rich. Capitalism works through the exploitation of labour (and other resources) for profit. There's no charitable intention involved. Only fair, in my view, that people who make money from the effort of OTHER PEOPLE pay some of it towards the common good, including the very people who make their money for them.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

There's a yin and yang to everything.
Capitalism has glorious principles of ambition, perseverance and ingenuity , on one side.
It has greed, expedience and corruption on the other.
Socialism has equity, security and unity on one side.
But can devolve into corruption, laziness and mediocrity on the other.
But anything can be corrupted- all part of human nature.

It's just too bad you can't find a system that employs the best principles of both and discourages the worst of either.

But I think that was "Utopia" wasn't it? :giggle. OR Woodstock :rofl2

[daly]

Do the working poor even pay taxes here? I remember back when I was younger and making under $35k per year, I would file my tax form and get all that I paid in back as a refund. I never owed anything. Only now, as a business owner, am I having to pay tax every year. And, believe me, my business is not even earning $15k per year and yet I'm still paying tax.


BINGO! No they don't. I know we didn't when I was growing up (we were working poor), nor did my husband and I when we were first married. But the poor do still go to the schools, drive on the roads, are protected by the police and the military. (As they should be! I'm not saying they shouldn't....lol). But you are right it is true that the larger incomes do already pay for all these things through their taxes.

For me, it is the mentality that government, 'the man' is the best, most efficient way to deal with ALL low income situations that I disagree with. -I'm not talking about people who are truly disabled, mentally challenged, elderly etc....but there is no reason why able-bodied, able-minded should not be able to work in a country that has enjoyed less than 5% unemployment.

If you are working poor (like I was for most of my life!) and you have a roof over your head, and you are not starving and you have clothes and heat and electricity and running water and access to public education....Guess what?! you are better off than 90% of the world's population (ok, I'm just pulling that statistic out of thin air, it may be more or less but you get my point :))...celebrate this FACT...dare I say be proud...give thanks to God if you believe in such. If you want more, you must believe in yourself enough to evaluate what you are doing (or not doing) that hinders your chance to enjoy a better life for you and yours! If, after evaluation, you find there is absolutely nothing more you can do or change, then be grateful for what you have...it's still better than any other time in history, than any other place. Having a spirit of 'envy' or allowing yourself to be perpetually dejected or feeling like the victim will not benefit you or your family. Seek help through local churches and private organizations. Make phone calls, let them know what you really need help with, you might be surprised what non-governmental help is really available.

No matter which candidate wins, I would hope that they would spend more time speaking to the American public, encouraging Americans to take more responsibility for their lives, to not just 'wait' for government to solve all the problems...cause that just will never happen. Daddies need to take responsibility for the children they produce, mommies need to consistent with love and discipline (daddies do too, but often they are not in the picture), kids need to be held accountable for their actions.

[Tiffikat]

I don't think anyone is saying that people should wait for the government to take responsibility. Honestly, I feel like a lot of things are being twisted so far out of proportion this campaign. I can't wait for the election to be over.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are A LOT of shades of gray. Everything is NOT black and white. It is not all one extreme or the other.

[BeckyO (AlmostMex)]

The Obama plan will keep the same or cut taxes on 90% of families,

After the last debate, I read on a fact check, that Obama actually is overstating how many truly will be affected here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27206446/). This is what it said:


OBAMA: "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent."
THE FACTS: Obama constantly says this. But the independent Tax Policy Center says his plan would cut taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009. Source
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27206446/)

[CraftTeaLady]

What about Student C who isn't smoking pot, turning in homework but still struggling. Is it wrong then, to ask Student A to assist the student who is struggling?

This is when student C pays for a tutor. :)

[arenee]

I think we have done things wrong. We are not giving a helping hand. We are giving hand outs.

We should focus on education as a way up. And other ways to help people step up. Habitat for Humanity is one of my favorite charities for that reason

[Krash]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Obama's concept.....but I interpreted it to be that he was taking from the rich and giving to the poor like Robinhood.

Do the working poor even pay taxes here? I remember back when I was younger and making under $35k per year, I would file my tax form and get all that I paid in back as a refund. I never owed anything. Only now, as a business owner, am I having to pay tax every year. And, believe me, my business is not even earning $15k per year and yet I'm still paying tax.

Anyway, to give the working poor a handout from the rich seems, to me, to be another form of social welfare. If you want to give the working poor more assistance, do that through social programs funded by generous supporters (private charities, church groups, etc.). It seems counterproductive to force the rich to give the handouts when these same people are the ones who create the jobs and other amenities so that the working class can earn a living. I get the impression that if the rich are forced to give up more in tax, then they have less incentive to grow their own wealth. So maybe they spend down their wealth so that they don't have to pay the tax. Then what?

That's what I thought too Kim...the Robin Hood analogy. I guess I'm wrong about the "spread the wealth" thing but I was thinking it wasn't aimed at a sort of welfare so much as it was in umm...(hmmm...struggling for the right word here) having the ones that have pay more to spread around to help fund anything and everything that our taxes currently go to pay:shrug

Am I right with that thinking or is it more of a "social welfare" issue where the higher tax monies would be going to a welfare type of system, assumedly the one we already have in place or maybe the reform of it?

Oh and don't the super rich already "find" ways to cut down that tax they pay?? lol Don't take that wrong it's just that as someone who saw 1000's of corporate taxes cross her desk and had to inspect them I can honestly say my head (as well as my coworkers heads) spun at some of the things these people could write off!!! You honestly wouldn't believe it if you didn't see it!! I've seen super, duper, famusly well known people write off enough to have almost 0 liability!

sigh..........this all just SUCKS:p I was going for McCain, then leaned towards Obama, back to McCain for SURE...now??? I'm back to undecided...maybe I'll just close my eyes, spin around and where ever my hand lands will be my vote...:blush

[tammy1999]

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding and listening to the McCain slam ads. Obama's plan is merely to return the richest tax bracket to their original tax percentage before Bush's tax cuts. He also wants to close the loopholes that allows these richest of American society from wiggling out of even paying the amount they are supposed to because they can afford better accountants than the rest of us.

The Obama plan will keep the same or cut taxes on 90% of families, and the remaining 10% are people who are wealthy and received many tax breaks under the Bush administration.

And its not all about taking from the rich to give to the poor. The current administration has left us with an incredible budget deficit. The war is costing billions and this money needs to be repaid. So its not just about funding charitable giving and welfare, but also funding other American programs such as the last 7 years of wars.

BTW, the money being spent for other items in this country. Like social security and disability for illegals is costing this country more than the war ever thought about. And you can blame Bush all you want to about whats going on right now in our country, but you need to go back to the 70's with the Carter Administration and the Clinton Administration and what they did with the CRA. That, my friend, led us up to this financial disaster. And also look what has happened in the past 2 years after the Dems have taken over congress.

[Tiffikat]

BTW, the money being spent for other items in this country. Like social security and disability for illegals is costing this country more than the war ever thought about.

I would like to see some statistics to back that statement up. Not saying it isn't true, I just want to see something that shows it.

[diannerigdon]

I've really been waiting to ask this question and have been terrified to start a riot. *smiles*

Why are people so afraid of the term "spreading the wealth" or "sharing the wealth?" I *honestly* don't understand why it's wrong for someone who's doing very well to have to pay a bit more in taxes than someone who is struggling.

As a nation, I think everyone can agree that we need services for the good of all and those services have to paid somehow. Why would we want to ask people that are struggling to pay into the system as much as (or more in terms of percentages) than those that are financially secure? If those people are struggling and we keep taking more and more ... it seems to me at some point we're going to break these people.

So, I'd really like to understand where those people are coming from that state they are afraid of this type of "distribution" of wealth. Although, as I understand it - it's simply about taxes. Even Warren Buffet says the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes ... so, I'm really trying to understand this.

The extremely rich may not be paying their fair share because there are so many tax shelters available to them. I have some serious questions about this.

But why should someone who has worked hard to be successful be responsible for more than their fair share? Where's the advantage to working hard? You know, it's not like winning the lotto where all of a sudden you have all this money in the bank and you don't know what to do with it or where it came from. I believe in helping people out - it's not that I am saying I don't want any of my tax dollars to help anyone. But what I am saying is why should I pay 30% if you are only paying 5%? How is that right or fair? Why should I be penalized just because I was more successful than you? (Using you and me as an example - no way I am anything approaching "rich" other than in spirit lol.) I think an even percentage across the board - perhaps with less tax shelters for the mega rich is the ONLY way to be FAIR.

If you want to talk about actually being "fair", that is.

But it seems like what people really want is something for nothing and we as a society have a richness disease whereby we think we deserve to be rich, even if it is on the back of someone else's work. We are a spoiled society who doesn't know how good we already have it. Even with our economic struggles of late, we have it relatively good. There are whole societies elsewhere in the world who struggle just to generate enough food to feed their people - forget about any health care. We are unbelievably rich as a country - free to pursue anything we want including religious freedom and the freedom to have these conversations. People need to quit worrying about how they are gonna get something for nothing and get busy being thankful. That changes the focus entirely.

[Hollie]

There's a yin and yang to everything.
Capitalism has glorious principles of ambition, perseverance and ingenuity , on one side.
It has greed, expedience and corruption on the other.
Socialism has equity, security and unity on one side.
But can devolve into corruption, laziness and mediocrity on the other.
But anything can be corrupted- all part of human nature.

It's just too bad you can't find a system that employs the best principles of both and discourages the worst of either.

But I think that was "Utopia" wasn't it? :giggle. OR Woodstock :rofl2

You're exactly right! And LOL at the last sentence:)

[kjbstevens]

It gives more power to the gov't instead of the people. It's a form of the gov't stepping into everyday lives and injecting themselves by doing what they believe is right mostly instead of people deciding how to give out money. It will be a big ender to charitable giving. Our society has been going about things completely wrong. I have no problem with a CCC or our gov't hiring people that are poor for their contract workers because it teaches job skills and cuts gov't costs, but just handing out money or allowing welfare checks like here in our states to go towards beer and lottery tickets does nothing to help their children's future. Responsibility in the people getting the money needs to come instead of something for nothing. If they'd teach job skills and break the irresponsibility it would help our future much better.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

But it seems like what people really want is something for nothing and we as a society have a richness disease whereby we think we deserve to be rich, even if it is on the back of someone else's work. We are a spoiled society who doesn't know how good we already have it. Even with our economic struggles of late, we have it relatively good. There are whole societies elsewhere in the world who struggle just to generate enough food to feed their people - forget about any health care. We are unbelievably rich as a country - free to pursue anything we want including religious freedom and the freedom to have these conversations. People need to quit worrying about how they are gonna get something for nothing and get busy being thankful. That changes the focus entirely.

Woo hoo Dianne! :clap How right you are.

I always tell my kids: if you have your needs being met, and if you're lucky- a few of your wants: be happy, be grateful. If you're not happy at that point, it's something inside- a spiritual crisis you need to address and *fill yourself up with*- not throw *things* at it!

[daly]

After the last debate, I read on a fact check, that Obama actually is overstating how many truly will be affected here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27206446/). This is what it said:

Source
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27206446/)

And this is if the plan is implemented exactly the way he promises. The fact of the matter is, is that the President is only one branch of the government. What would one typically expect a democratic congress and a President to actually do once they are in power?

I tend to be a bit cynical about promises that any politician makes. (Republican or Democrat!)

[Keely~B]

I think that most Americans want to live in a society where hard work is rewarded, I've not met anyone who is in favor of rewarding laziness. When you have so much wealth concentrated in such a small percentage of the population, I think the argument that you can just "work hard" to be successful falls flat. When you have 1% holding 50% of the nation's wealth, and the gap between rich and poor continually widens, you can't say that those few have "earned" it or worked harder than everyone else. The wealth hasn't been trickling down it's just blown upward and been spread sideways. I don't see how thinking there should be a more fair distribution of wealth is asking for something for nothing. I'm not saying everyone should have the same, there will be rich and poor always, but I think the current breakdown of wealth is disgraceful.

[kjbstevens]

I agree with Dianne's statement. Our poor here compared to other places is a totally eye opener. Not having cable is totally different than not having any food or water for a week.

[daly]

Woo hoo Dianne! :clap How right you are.

I always tell my kids: if you have your needs being met, and if you're lucky- a few of your wants: be happy, be grateful. If you're not happy at that point, it's something inside- a spiritual crisis you need to address and *fill yourself up with*- not throw *things* at it!

WooHoo Miki!:clap

Excellent, excellent point.

[Hollie]

I think that, still, you are being allowed to choose what you do and how you do it here--even when you felt it was *expected* of you. Is it possible the prof knew you were the kind of person that would do this, and since you are, you kind of felt obligated? Just wondering, really. I imagine the prof wouldn't ask someone he/she thought would say no. Just a guess though.

And as far as actually taking some of your GPA to give to another--it's not really realistic (or I hope not) but I find that to be absolutely counterproductive--speaking as a former teacher. A grade in a class is a measure of the work you have done and/or knowledge/understanding you have aquired. Not of someone else's.

ETA: I do happen to agree that greed is a major problem in our society. Not necessarily what Capitalism is *all about,* but it certainly is a huge factor.

Personally and I'll probably get flamed for saying this but I truly believe that greed rules American society. Greed is what a capitalist society is about in my opinion.

At my school I AM student A. I work very hard and I am about to graduate next month with a 4.0. That doesn't mean I don't want to see student B or C do just as well if they could. In fact I've tried each term to find a way to help people doing not as well, regardless of why they weren't doing as well. I help people in my classes and I even donated time to the tutoring center (where most people get paid to work but I just felt that the money wasn't as important).

A few terms ago a professor asked me to help another student in the class that was struggling. Now while she asked I got the distinct impression that she expected me to say yes, which I did. I wasn't at all upset that this help was expected from me. If I'm doing so well in a class what is it going to hurt me to help someone else do well also? Now I don't have a lot of extra time so I just adjusted my time to help this student study and used that as my study time at the same time.

If it were about giving a few points of my GPA I just can't imagine being that upset about that either as long as I had what I needed to continue on in school. I see money being the same way. If you have more than enough to get by and can get yourself all of those extras is it really so bad to have someone say, how about helping out this program or person. Isn't it a good feeling to help someone else? Even if you feel it is expected rather than asked? I know it always has been for me.

[Keely~B]

Dianne I agree, we do live in a wonderful country and I am very grateful. I find the spirit of entitlement and materialism very disheartening. I love my country and want us all to do better as a whole, to move forward and not backward.

[Gina.Maria]

That struck me as a very odd way of looking at it.

The rich create jobs and other amenities so that working class folks can earn a living. That's nice of them, isn't it?

Hardly, the working class work to make money for business owners. They have to, because if they didn't they would starve. But make no mistake, 'jobs' are not there for the charitable benefit of the working class, they are there because they make money for the rich. Capitalism works through the exploitation of labour (and other resources) for profit. There's no charitable intention involved. Only fair, in my view, that people who make money from the effort of OTHER PEOPLE pay some of it towards the common good, including the very people who make their money for them.

:clap You are a very wise woman, Ruby.

::snip::

It's just too bad you can't find a system that employs the best principles of both and discourages the worst of either.

But I think that was "Utopia" wasn't it? :giggle. OR Woodstock :rofl2

You realize, don't you, that "Utopia" means "nowhere?"



Originally Posted by Kim2002 http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?p=1537083#post1537083)

Do the working poor even pay taxes here? I remember back when I was younger and making under $35k per year, I would file my tax form and get all that I paid in back as a refund. I never owed anything. Only now, as a business owner, am I having to pay tax every year. And, believe me, my business is not even earning $15k per year and yet I'm still paying tax.
BINGO! No they don't. ::snip::YAHTZEE! Yes they do! They pay sales tax and property tax and fuel tax and license tax and an endless list of other taxes and they don't get to claim it as a deduction on their federal tax returns like so many in higher income classes can.

I think that most Americans want to live in a society where hard work is rewarded, I've not met anyone who is in favor of rewarding laziness. When you have so much wealth concentrated in such a small percentage of the population, I think the argument that you can just "work hard" to be successful falls flat. When you have 1% holding 50% of the nation's wealth, and the gap between rich and poor continually widens, you can't say that those few have "earned" it or worked harder than everyone else. The wealth hasn't been trickling down it's just blown upward and been spread sideways. I don't see how thinking there should be a more fair distribution of wealth is asking for something for nothing. I'm not saying everyone should have the same, there will be rich and poor always, but I think the current breakdown of wealth is disgraceful.

Keely, :wub

[FrenchRuby]

we as a society have a richness disease whereby we think we deserve to be rich, even if it is on the back of someone else's work.

On the back of someone else's work is the ONLY way you get rich, see my post earlier.

But I agree we all spend too much time thinking how great it would be to be rich-er and not enough time appreciating how rich we actually are in comparison to the majority of the world. Perhaps if we spent more time thinking about WHY we are richer then all those billions of people we might have more understanding of why the world is in the state it's in. The natural world, as well as the economic one.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Yup ;)

[Hollie]

There are a lot of great contributions to this thread--I can't address them all! But I have enjoyed reading this thoroughly.

[BeckyO (AlmostMex)]

I would like to see some statistics to back that statement up. Not saying it isn't true, I just want to see something that shows it.

Ditto to Tiffkat's comment - I'd like to see this as well. I think that a lot of time illegals take a lot of blame for things that simply aren't true when the facts are brought to light. And for the record, after going through a long immigration process to bring my husband here legally, I am not one who automatically defends illegal immigration but I hate to see ANY group of people blamed for something without there being facts to back it up. Please seriously, and I don't mean this in a snarky way, do share the facts to back this statement up. If it's true, I'd like to know.

[Scorpiosue1102]

Here's my problem, we as a country are so worried about giving the poor money that in contrast companies like AIG spend almost $100,000 on an English fox hunt. My outrage is more towards the big fat cat that don't give a hoot except for what goes in their pocket. Think of all the mishandling of money by the big companies: Tyco, Enron, WorldCom, Fannie, Freddie, Countrywide, UnitedHealthcare, Lehman Brothers, AIG and so many more. One is one too many. Our country IS greedy. We are a country of iPhones, Wii and Hollister. We have the biggest discrepancy between rich and poor in our countries history.

I've been on the poor end. As a parent, I can't imagine what my mom went through and how sad Christmas was for her when all she could give were basketball banks and underwear. It kind of irks me that the automatic thinking is that people that use gov't assistance are people that abuse it. About 30% abuse it, 30% too many, but it happens. All it takes is to lose your job and not being able to make your mortgage to be in the same boat.

I'm already trying to instill in my son that he needs to be philanthropic. He has a bank where it has four sections: spend, save, invest and donate. Even as a kid, he's starting to understand that. Also, I'd like for him to come with me to help at a Toys for Tots or something. He needs to know that people are not as fortunate as himself. My son WANTS everything, but he's learning he can't have everything he wants. We still argue about him getting toys, but hey, I'm the mom. LOL

[BeckyO (AlmostMex)]

YAHTZEE! Yes they do! They pay sales tax and property tax and fuel tax and license tax and an endless list of other taxes and they don't get to claim it as a deduction on their federal tax returns like so many in higher income classes can.


Are you saying those who get all of their taxes back aren't getting to take an itemized deduction or not even the standard deduction? I pay all of those items you listed (sales tax, property tax, etc.) and still don't have enough deductions to take anything other than the standard deduction either but I can't be considered working poor by any measures either.

[tammy1999]

We are the greatest country in the world and there is no reason for anyone in this country not to make it great. I have lived in housing projects, trailor courts, gotten my education, worked from one job to another better paying job and actually moved from one state to another to find a better situation for my family. And now I own my own business and am starting another one with my husband. And I am running my business with hardly any expense money and advertising it for free and also able to put a small amount in my IRA monthly. My husband and I are now living in a modest home in Florida in a 55+ community. But working all our lives has paid off. Oh and BTW, we live on a Fireman's pension and maybe we can't go on fancy vacations or don't have a new car, but we love our life.

There is no reason to not get an education in this country. My son couldn't afford it but he figured out how to get loans and now he is working on his Masters and teaching school in a very low income school district. Do you think his pay is high? NO, because he wants to teach children to play music. He is paying back loans but also found out there are schools in certain areas that if you give your time there, they will forgive some of his loans. He is doing what he has to do.

I also hear people say, well, that poor fella worked all his life and never got anywhere. Think maybe he didn't want to get any where? Where I was raised was very low income and people that did their work, came home to their family, were some of the happiest people I know. And most of them were farm laborers.

If you truely want it bad enough, you can have it in this country. Just takes a lot of work, struggle and a lot of infomation. And of course, an education.

Another sad thing is, the most wealthy people in this country are liberals. And when you look up the statistics, they are the ones that don't contribute the most to charities. It is also sad to see who in Congress gives to charity. Do a quick Google search and you will be surprised at how some give less than 1% of their millions to help out a Charity.

This is a quote from a study done on 20/20. "The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."

But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.

And I thought the Liberals were known to help the "little people".

[Hollie]

You realize, don't you, that "Utopia" means "nowhere?"




Technically, "Utopia" as derived from the Greek does in fact mean this. However it is not the modern understanding of the word. "Utopia," as it is commonly understood in modern times, means "a place of perfection," not "a place of nonexistance."

You can read more about the term HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia)

[daly]

I think that most Americans want to live in a society where hard work is rewarded, I've not met anyone who is in favor of rewarding laziness. When you have so much wealth concentrated in such a small percentage of the population, I think the argument that you can just "work hard" to be successful falls flat. When you have 1% holding 50% of the nation's wealth, and the gap between rich and poor continually widens, you can't say that those few have "earned" it or worked harder than everyone else. The wealth hasn't been trickling down it's just blown upward and been spread sideways. I don't see how thinking there should be a more fair distribution of wealth is asking for something for nothing. I'm not saying everyone should have the same, there will be rich and poor always, but I think the current breakdown of wealth is disgraceful.

Sometimes I like to apply concepts to my own little 'family world' to hopefully help me work things out in my mind....

My 15 year old daughter is much more 'industrious' than my 14 year old son. She works hard at school, is upset for a couple of days if she does not make straight A's on a report card (she has made straight A's for the past 3 years). She wants to make money so she does extra chores, she works for my mom's business, she babysits, she does designs websites. She works hard for her money and she saves it. She is a small group leader for 5th grade girls at church every Sunday morning. She sign up for volunteering opportunities ALL THE TIME. She's Type A personality all the way!

My son is another story....:). Don't get me wrong....he is a 'good' kid, doesn't get into trouble, he does what he must to just 'get-by' for some of the school subjects he is not too interested in. (But he excels at computer programming which is his passion). He doesn't really care too much about making any extra money...he'd rather have the free time to 'hang-out' or play his games. (He's the Butt Scratching, Bass Fisher in Dave Ramesey's article.. (http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/cms/butt_scratching_and_bass_fishing_10192.htmlc)..... not that there's anything wrong with that :lol)

But here's the deal...

My daughter gets advantages, material goods, more money, recognition and admiration for things that my son does not. He understands why this is....he's ok with it.

We don't belittle him for being the way he is... right now it is his 'bent'. We don't make excuses for him beyond recognizing that his Asperger's makes some things a bit more challenging for him. When (if) he ever wants more, he will get busy about figuring out how to get more...work for it more, study more, volunteer more.

But neither do we tell my daughter that she is only allowed to make up to X amount of money and then that is too much and she must share some of her wealth with her brother.

Ummm, no. :lol would not work well in my household at all.

(Yes, we have to pay taxes, yes, we need some government...but enough is enough!)

[Gina.Maria]

And that's because you provide all their material needs. Not a perfect analogy.

[4noisyboys]

This is when student C pays for a tutor. :)

Not necessarily. At the college where my son goes, there are lots of A students that volunteer their time to tutor. They get some sort of extra credit or help with paying their tuition. Then, since my son has a disability, there will be an assigned student (who would also receive some sort of compensation) in the class who will act as a scribe for him and get him copies of his notes.

Now, my younger son who is a C student, and only because he doesn't turn in his homework, and in no way needs a tutor, he doesn't deserve any help at all. He is perfectly capable of doing it on his own, and will have to face the consequences of his own actions.

This is how it should be in real life too. There will be those that just need our help, but of course they can and do abuse the system. That is what we need to be talking about...reforming the system....not totally doing away with it.

[~ashleigh]

I think that most Americans want to live in a society where hard work is rewarded, I've not met anyone who is in favor of rewarding laziness. When you have so much wealth concentrated in such a small percentage of the population, I think the argument that you can just "work hard" to be successful falls flat. When you have 1% holding 50% of the nation's wealth, and the gap between rich and poor continually widens, you can't say that those few have "earned" it or worked harder than everyone else. The wealth hasn't been trickling down it's just blown upward and been spread sideways. I don't see how thinking there should be a more fair distribution of wealth is asking for something for nothing. I'm not saying everyone should have the same, there will be rich and poor always, but I think the current breakdown of wealth is disgraceful.

:clap


Bush's tax cuts were a hand out to the wealthy. We as a country, could not afford them, and they must be reversed. Even John McCain was against these cuts (until he changed his mind). You can't increase government spending while cutting taxes for the wealthy.

Additionally, at least in my state, all people, including low wage workers who make less than $12,000 a year, DO pay taxes. Our sales tax is ranges between 7% & 8% (4% on groceries), plus if you do own a home or a car, you owe personal property taxes every year.

We do need to spread the "wealth." Not only by helping those that are struggling, but also by creating opportunities. We have seen that the rich are not "trickling down" their wealth in the forms of benefits, jobs, etc. In fact many companies are cutting back to increase their profits. As a government "of the people," we must take care of all of our citizens. CEO's make money off the hard work of the middle class, and they should pay their taxes, too. We need to be sure that all corporations & individuals are paying their fair share in taxes, not hiding profits, or shipping jobs to china, or their bank accounts to off-shore accounts in an effort to get out of paying taxes.

I can only imagine what great things could be accomplished if all the passion on this topic was directed more towards fighting for the less fortunate instead of for the wealthiest 5-10%.

[daly]

And that's because you provide all their material needs. Not a perfect analogy.


I never claimed it was a 'perfect analogy'. I would counter that many of the 'working poor's' needs are being met too....shelter, food, etc. etc.

But the point is that she works more, she gets more. The point is that my son understands this fact too. He doesn't whine about wanting a portion of what she has worked for so very hard.

The point is that I do not force her to put a higher percentage of her money into 'charity' than my son does.

I don't tell my daughter, "Ok you must tithe 12% of your money to church. I know that your brother only is required to tithe 5% of his money....but you make sooooooo much more than he does....it's really only fair that you should pay a much higher percentage.

Now if she were being paid for the hours and hours of volunteer work that she does...then it would turn out that she actually is giving more. But you see...that is another point she is willingly, cheerfully giving....we're not taking it away from her.....which would create an animosity I'm sure!

[daly]

:clap
YAHTZEE! Yes they do! They pay sales tax and property tax and fuel tax and license tax and an endless list of other taxes and they don't get to claim it as a deduction on their federal tax returns like so many in higher income classes can.



UNO! :lol

We were talking about FEDERAL INCOME TAX....which I thought would be obvious.

Oh, and typically the richer you are...the more you spend therefore the more sales tax you pay.
The more property you own, the more property tax you pay.

[txmusicmom]

What about Student C who isn't smoking pot, turning in homework but still struggling. Is it wrong then, to ask Student A to assist the student who is struggling? Is it ok, then for Student A to tell Student C that I'll help you if you try to help yourself.

STUDENT A CAN help Student C but that doesn't require STUDENT A to give up his GPA......he is just giving a hand up to Student C

I'm currently taking classes in Anatomy & Physiology. They are the hardest classes I've ever undertaken and I'm working my behind off. The grades I earn, I earn honestly. I pass, I fail, I've earned my grade. However, is it wrong of me to seek out tutoring when I need help? Is it wrong for those in my class who are doing better Bme to assist me in my understanding? I'm not asking them to give me the answers, just to help me understand.

No, but YOU have to do the work ( I have taught A and P-- it's a booger!- You can get help --But YOU have to make the grade- no one can do that for you. By the way- congrats to you!!!! Go Girl!!!

Each of us who is for a little of the "spreading the wealth" isn't happy with those who are abusing the system. Personally, I feel that those who abuse the system should be made to pay back the system and be prosecuted for their abuses.

But for our example- those are the CHEATERS-- those who don't do the work-- I caught 2 students doing that last semester. If Student A gave the answer to Student B - that is cheating--but if he helps Student B-- that is giving a hand up! But *B* still has to do the work
( man, I know you are!!! - keep working!!!)


In the same vein, asking those of us who are doing better financially to give more to society to assist those who are doing poorly, not those who are looking for a way to cheat the system, isn't a bad thing. We're not asking those better off to give me money so I can sit on my behind. Give me a hand-up so I can do better for myself and my family.

ETA: Currently I've got an 82 in A&P!!! :yahoo

It goes back to the adage---- Give a man a fish- and you've fed him for one day. Teach him how to fish and you've fed him for life.

I am an instructor- I want my students to be successful- But ultimately they have to do the work-- in life that transfers to -- going back to school- switching careers, looking for opportunities to make more money, looking for ways to budget better, cutting back expenses.

Often there are little things ( and some big things) you can do to improve your situation. Most of them are not easy-- or everyone would do them.
:lol

My husband got his degree ( technical school) after we married. I worked - he went to school- all day.......but it paid off..........then after he was laid off........he worked at Compaq and got his Bachelors.......now he is working on his Masters............He came from very poor conditions.......and very little opportunity. But he has worked since he was 13.

With all these who want to spread the wealth-- HOW MUCH OF THEIR OWN MONEY are they GIVING now.........to others...........??? I know for sure one candidate gave much less than our family did per his income tax return- I'll have to find the numbers.

See they want to give YOUR money to others........;) They really don't want to give up their lifestyle--

They want your vote-- and they will say and do almost anything to get it.
( I'm speaking philosophy wise-- not aimed at one particular person) Who is the person who cares?- the one who talks the talk-- or one who walks the walk....... :blush

In the spring I'm going to have the opportunity to talk to some young moms about how to make their money stretch -- even their food stamp money.....they need to have that skill and many just don't know how.
These are very poor moms on government assistance. I'm SO excited!!! I want to give a HAND UP~! :yahoo

Sorry so long............I was gone yesterday!!!! :lol :lol :lol

[tammy1999]

:clap


Bush's tax cuts were a hand out to the wealthy. We as a country, could not afford them, and they must be reversed. Even John McCain was against these cuts (until he changed his mind). You can't increase government spending while cutting taxes for the wealthy.

Where do you keep getting that the tax cuts were for the rich. Because it affected people who invest their money or dividends? There are alot of people, and not ones that are wealthy, have invested their money and receive dividends. A lot of retired folk live on those dividends. Capitial gains? You sell your home and thats a capital gain. Estate taxes? I can't tell you how many family owned small farms where I am from in Missouri had to be sold to a foreign country or on the auction block because the family couldn't pay the estate taxes.

Americans faced lower tax rates than any time since 1979 because of those tax cuts. But then again, it will go back to what it was in 2010.

I got this information from NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS

The top 1 percent of income earners pay more than one in every three dollars the IRS collects in taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1 percent of earners grew from 25.8 percent to 36.9 percent, while the total share of the tax burden paid by the bottom half of earners fell from 6.5 percent to only 3.3 percent.

During the same period, the percentage of income the top 1 percent of tax filers paid in federal income taxes rose from 18.3 percent to 19.6 percent. By contrast, the percentage of income the bottom fifth of tax filers paid in federal income taxes dropped from 0.4 percent to zero.

The income share of the top 1 percent rose 7.7 percentage points, from 11.3 percent to 19 percent, while their income tax burden rose even more, by 11 percentage points, from 26 percent to 37 percent.

[txmusicmom]

The Bush tax cuts helped me and I'm far from rich..........reversing them would be a huge tax increase for me......specifically the child tax credit!

[cassie-in-texas]

Whatever happened to "shame?" An old-time attack of both moral and social conscience? It seems to have completely disappeared from our society. Why are AIG executives (and their ilk) not ashamed? Why are people abusing social programs not ashamed? Why are executives handing out multi-million dollar bonuses to eachother while arguing against raising minimum wage not ashamed? Why are people who are capable of work but claiming to be unable not ashamed?
There have always been people who took advantage of others, but they used to be villified. Now people seem to just shrug and think it's all "part of the system." This is just an awful mindset; it's greed and entitlement at both ends of the spectrum. I just wish I had a solution.

[txmusicmom]

Whatever happened to "shame?" This is just an awful mindset; it's greed and entitlement at both ends of the spectrum. I just wish I had a solution.


:clap :clap :clap

Well said!

[kjbstevens]

Bush's tax cuts were a hand out to the wealthy.
From from it. The child tax credits from this is what allows us low income people to have zero tax liability. They come close to exempting a lot of people under $40 with kids from paying income tax instead of us having to rely on gov't services.

[~ashleigh]

Hasn't the argument been that the wealthy is paying too much in taxes already? Then wouldn't an across the board tax cut benefit them more? Bush's tax cuts were irresponsible, and the wealthy benefited most from it.

Let's look at the specifics that have been brought up:

-Capital Gains Tax is only owed on your primary residence if your home sale makes a net profit of more than 250,000, after expenses (that figure increases to 500,000 if you are married or filing jointly). And if you sell investment property at at profit, you can offset that with a 1031 exchange. Most people, especially the poor & middle class, don't benefit from a lower capital gains tax.

-Capital Gains on stocks & dividends - Yes, a lot of people invest in stocks, and they make money. But the wealthy make a lot more money in the stock market, and benefit more from the tax break on Capital Gains.

-Inheritance tax is a touchy subject, since theoretically, the money being passed down has already been taxed. However, there are ways around this tax for most inheritances. By re-titling a property in two or more people names (usually the dependents) this asset can be transfered without paying an estate tax. Also, regarding farms, you may like to know that the IRS allows a reduction from value of up to $820,000 (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108143,00.html#4). Also there is a $10,000/person/year tax free allowance for gifting your estate. And there are also other deductions that can be utilized, and your well-paid estate attorney will be available to help you with that.

And this doesn't get into deferment strategies and purposeful losses and other tax strategies that well paid tax accountants can help you benefit from (assuming you can afford their fees).

There are many, many hard working struggling families who don't net over 500,000 from the sale of their home, who don't have huge stock portfolios and who will never see a dime in inheritance, much less over a million dollars. These tax breaks obviously don't benefit them. My point is that many of the tax breaks we've seen since 2001 have benefited those who make enough to qualify for them, as well as those who can further employ a professional to find more breaks and loopholes. I don't see why this statement is so controversial.

FWIW, while we have struggled in the past few years, I have not lived on government aid. My dh is a Investment Representative and Real Estate Broker, we own rental property, have rehabbed and sold homes, and we may very well be in one of the higher earning tax brackets in a few years. Although my family made more taxable income 8 years ago, I have seen some benefit from Bush's tax cuts, and I would benefit from McCain's, but I still think these cuts were negligent, and have hurt our government's fiscal health.

I don't vote based on MY pocket book, I vote based on what I believe is best for our country. To begin with, we need to better fund education, fix our healthcare system, and work with companies to create jobs in this country. That will help end poverty, and increase prosperity FOR ALL.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

There is no reason to not get an education in this country.

Actually- that's not true anymore. Many kids/people have had their loans yanked out form under their feet now.

[tammy1999]

Actually- that's not true anymore. Many kids/people have had their loans yanked out form under their feet now.

My point was that there are many ways to get an education. We searched high and wide to find the best funding for my son. If you want something bad enough, you will find a way. Thats all I meant.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

I got that. I just disagree that it may be that simple now.

[cheribear]

I think primarily because the United States is a predominantly Capitalist society and the tenets we hold dear as a nation have to do with working hard and being able to achieve anything. That's why so many people want to come here, right? Land of opportunity and all that...

I don't have a problem spreading the wealth to people that are struggling temporarily, but I have a real problem when I think of my tax dollars going to someone who is just living off the govt. teat, so to speak. Think of it like grade point average for a minute...

Student A works their butt off and studies all the time, pays attention in class, does all the extra credit they can and pull off a 4.0 GPA

Student B smokes pot at lunch time, rarely bothers to turn in homework, doesn't go to class half the time and is subsequently failing out of school.

Let's just take a few points of Student A's GPA and spread the wealth of it to Student B, then everyone is happy, right? Or maybe Student A is going to get tired of busting their hump so student B can slide by.

I may have a simplistic view of this but that's my .02 FWIW

Which of these is Paris Hilton, I'd like to know.

There is no problem with the concept that you can achieve anything with hard work and/or that hard work will be rewarded with prosperity.

However, the world doesn't actually work like that. There are plenty of lazy people who have more money than they'll ever need, and sadly - millions and millions who will work hard all their lives and never know what its like to be financially secure. It bothers me that there is some sort of automatic assumption that people who have lots of money are more deserving of it than others. There is being prosperous as a result of hard work, and then there is obscene wealth, that IMHO, nobody on earth has ever worked 'hard enough' to deserve to have that much wealth when so many others have so little.

Yet others see that kind of wealth as evidence of the success of capitalism, and applaud it. I don't get that.

[Miss Chris]

My point was that there are many ways to get an education. We searched high and wide to find the best funding for my son. If you want something bad enough, you will find a way. Thats all I meant.

Almost every person who has spoken out in this thread against the distribution of wealth mentions working hard and getting an education. Am I the only one who sees the irony in the fact that our educators are highly educated, work their asses off and are often part of the working poor due to inadequate compensation. Don't tell me that if I worked harder I would get ahead. Because I am working myself to the bone to educate children like yours and I am still scrapping by. It is just not that simple.

[HLWalter725]

GREAT point, Chris. I, too, am an educator. Most of my students will graduate and go out and get jobs that will (hopefully) pay more than I make. And I work hard as well.

[SarahMD]

I never claimed it was a 'perfect analogy'. I would counter that many of the 'working poor's' needs are being met too....shelter, food, etc. etc.

As a member of the working poor I'd like to just put our status out there for consideration. Shelter (check) Food (sub standard - not healthy) Health Care (check) Utilities (half check).

While we meet MOST of our needs... it's a matter of which month will we be able to pay them in. We tend to run at least 1-2 months behind on all of the above. I get to spend maybe $50 a week on groceries and with the prices going up on pretty much everything it cuts things really close. So while I would LOVE to buy some protein rich foods or lots of fruits and veggies... it just isn't always something I can count on getting.

I too have been looking for employment as of late and going on 30 days with nothing yet... but what happens come end of January when I have to take weeks off to care for the new baby... It is a vicious cycle... with every season comes a new set of responsibility to meet the various needs that come with them.

I'm not asking for a handout from the government. I would just like to see an increase of income with the increases on prices of fuel, groceries, and other utilities... I just want us to be stable...

[tammy1999]

Almost every person who has spoken out in this thread against the distribution of wealth mentions working hard and getting an education. Am I the only one who sees the irony in the fact that our educators are highly educated, work their asses off and are often part of the working poor due to inadequate compensation. Don't tell me that if I worked harder I would get ahead. Because I am working myself to the bone to educate children like yours and I am still scrapping by. It is just not that simple.

You are right but you also have to remember that teachers are paid by the government. Along with our fireman, police and military. Government paid employees don't get the best pay. My husband was a firefighter for 32 years. Yes, he worked his hinny off and is now enjoying retirement with full benefits for the rest of our lives. But for him to get better pay, he took classes and made his way up the ranks. Most government jobs have great benefits. Sometimes benefits take up that slack on pay in the long run.

And if you wanted to get ahead in the teaching business, you either get more hours, another degree and go up on the pay scale. And I never said it was simple. Getting what you want in life is never simple.

[vegaschristina]

And if you wanted to get ahead in the teaching business, you either get more hours, another degree and go up on the pay scale. And I never said it was simple. Getting what you want in life is never simple.

Actually, in the Clark County School District, top pay...TOP pay is $50,000/year. That's for someone with TONS of experience and a PHD. So...you spend $50,000 to get your master's degree, goodness how much more to get the PHD, and the MOST you'd get in CCSD is $50,000 a year. That's ridiculous.

[txmusicmom]

Actually- that's not true anymore. Many kids/people have had their loans yanked out form under their feet now.

Yes but you can live at home and go to a community college. You can even get 4 year degrees from them ( thru a partnership)

The cost to attend is around $1500 a semester - MANY of my students are on financial aid-- not loans. So that is $3000 a year if you are paying out of pocket- $250 a month. Yes that is a sizeable amount of money.

If you are part-time and work, you can take 2 classes a semester @ $400 plus books ( which you can buy on Amazon- used!).

In Texas, some of the universities are just ridiculously high. But some of the private ones pay out a lot of scholarship- as well as an equalization amount- basically if you make less than more student's families- you get a reduction- to equalize.

[txmusicmom]

You are right but you also have to remember that teachers are paid by the government. Along with our fireman, police and military. Government paid employees don't get the best pay.

Sad but true........:(

[txmusicmom]

However, the world doesn't actually work like that. There are plenty of lazy people who have more money than they'll ever need, and sadly - millions and millions who will work hard all their lives and never know what its like to be financially secure. It bothers me that there is some sort of automatic assumption that people who have lots of money are more deserving of it than others. There is being prosperous as a result of hard work, and then there is obscene wealth, that IMHO, nobody on earth has ever worked 'hard enough' to deserve to have that much wealth when so many others have so little.

Yet others see that kind of wealth as evidence of the success of capitalism, and applaud it. I don't get that.

Very true--- hard work doesn't always equal more pay.

I've always tried to live within our means.........which we did until about the last year or two. Increase in prices.....along with no pay raises ( about 10 % total in 10 years) To do this we still have prepaid cell phone. $15 /month, no cable.........shop the sales.......I know you do similar things....

My mom always said- just because someone SEEMS to be rich-- doesn't mean that they are..........Come to find out a very high percentage of the folks in our wealthier school system (outside our town) are living way above their means and are in financial difficulties.........the IRONY of that. We choose an average house in town - vs a teeny weeny one over there.

We have farming friends ......who are just precious........they never complain.........but frankly they live very meagerly. But they own the land, their home........

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Yes but you can live at home and go to a community college. You can even get 4 year degrees from them ( thru a partnership)

Actually, the degree my son is going for (Emergency Management) - the University of Akron is the only one that offers it as a baccalaureate program in the country (or so they say, LOL!). But they definitely are the closest to us. Thus, he goes there. He's earned a small scholarship that helps defray the cost of room and board a bit, John and I pay for the tuition, and Chris (our son) earns the rest over summer break at his security job. But some of the kids in the program have had to leave when their loans got yanked- with more kids likely to be in that position come winter semester. The Community Colleges around here only offer Associate Degrees. And while those degrees work for some jobs/careers- not this one.

The cost to attend is around $1500 a semester - MANY of my students are on financial aid-- not loans. So that is $3000 a year if you are paying out of pocket- $250 a month. Yes that is a sizable amount of money.His costs over $16,000 per year. Going up next year. But hopefully Obama's tax credit will help us out a little ;)

If you are part-time and work, you can take 2 classes a semester @ $400 plus books ( which you can buy on Amazon- used!).

His scholarship requires AT LEAST 12 credit hours per semester. His books cost over $800 this semester- and we bought used where possible. He works on some weekends to pay his cell phone bill and his portion of the automobile insurance- with a little for spending money. His job is to keep and A average and his scholarship. Not all kids are as fortunate though.

[4noisyboys]

Almost every person who has spoken out in this thread against the distribution of wealth mentions working hard and getting an education. Am I the only one who sees the irony in the fact that our educators are highly educated, work their asses off and are often part of the working poor due to inadequate compensation. Don't tell me that if I worked harder I would get ahead. Because I am working myself to the bone to educate children like yours and I am still scrapping by. It is just not that simple.

Chris...I think you live in the wrong state!! My sister's dh is a sheriff in Kansas, and he only makes about $15,000 a year. Thankfully, her daddy and mommy (we are half sisters) take care of all their financial needs. She's never paid for a vehicle, gas, houses (they've bought her several), kids clothes, vacations to Europe, etc....Here in SoCal, most policemen we know make well over $100,000 a year.

Also, here in southern Calif, many teachers I know with masters degrees earn as much as $100,000 a year. That is not everyone, but a lot of them make pretty darn good money. My sister complains that she only makes $50,000 a year working at a parochial school. She has her masters, but her hours won't transfer over to the public school where she could be making a lot more money.

Yes, the cost of living was higher here too, but now you can buy a gorgeous home here for dirt cheap!! :lol

[daly]

Ditto to Tiffkat's comment - I'd like to see this as well. I think that a lot of time illegals take a lot of blame for things that simply aren't true when the facts are brought to light. And for the record, after going through a long immigration process to bring my husband here legally, I am not one who automatically defends illegal immigration but I hate to see ANY group of people blamed for something without there being facts to back it up. Please seriously, and I don't mean this in a snarky way, do share the facts to back this statement up. If it's true, I'd like to know.

There is an interesting Youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

has charts, stats....gumballs too (yum).

[txmusicmom]

There is an interesting Youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

has charts, stats....gumballs too (yum).

WOW! Thanks for sharing!

[Tiffikat]

I don't have time to watch the entire video but does it say where they acquired this information?

[HappyMc]

I've really been waiting to ask this question and have been terrified to start a riot. *smiles*

Why are people so afraid of the term "spreading the wealth" or "sharing the wealth?" I *honestly* don't understand why it's wrong for someone who's doing very well to have to pay a bit more in taxes than someone who is struggling.



I hope I don't interrupt anything by jumping in and answering the PO's question.

At one point in our lives, my dh and I struggled, too. However, we never ever, not once used public assistance for anything. We always made it on our own, no matter how rough it was. Both of us spent half our lives in school, working hard to get where we are now. Now that we are here, we don't want to share. Period. We worked for it. We keep it. We give to charity and we pay taxes, but we don't need a Robin Hood coming in and telling us that we need to pay up more because we made it. Nope, that's not sitting right with me.

[strangejen]

Yes but you can live at home and go to a community college.

so how should people who live in the middle of nowhere live at home to go to school? Like I told someone in another thread -- go to Google Maps and type in 59323. That's the zip-code of where I'm from. MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. My mom commuted 2 hours EACH WAY when we were younger to attend college (you know . . . to "better herself.") In the late 80s/early 90s that was possible. No way with gas prices these days.

Answers aren't always as easy as some people would like to think.

[Tiffikat]

Hmm a community college still costs $5 or more per year at least, not counting books and other class necessities. How do you recommend that someone who cannot get a loan (for whatever reason, I know a lot of people lost their loans recently) and is currently working 1, 2, or more jobs just to support their family make all of that work?

[strangejen]

(tongue in cheek):

just work harder.

apparently that just makes magical things happen. @@ <---- me rolling my eyes

[daly]

so how should people who live in the middle of nowhere live at home to go to school? Like I told someone in another thread -- go to Google Maps and type in 59323. That's the zip-code of where I'm from. MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. My mom commuted 2 hours EACH WAY when we were younger to attend college (you know . . . to "better herself.") In the late 80s/early 90s that was possible. No way with gas prices these days.

Answers aren't always as easy as some people would like to think.

If obtaining a degree was priority #1 for someone, she might have to consider moving closer to a college. I know that is easy for me to say though, I grew up moving every few to 6 months and so 'moving' is not a terribly big deal to me.;)

Or

google 'Online universities' . I was really surprised (and intrigued) to find out recently that there are so many 'online' options nowdays.

[strangejen]

no, that's not what I'm saying . . . lots of people DO move closer . . . just that the suggestion that it's as simple as living AT HOME (like . . . in your parents' home) isn't realistic for a LOT of people

oh, are you talking about that my mom could have moved closer instead of commuting? My dad's job was in the town we were in, they owned a home -- and you can't just uproot kids in 2nd, 4th, and 6th grade simply so you can go to college. (She didn't feel like she could, anyway.) But the point is, we lived in the boonies and the two-hour-away school was the only option.

[Tiffikat]

Many employers won't take a second look at someone's resume with a degree from an online university. I think that would be a waste of money for many.

[Miss Chris]

Most government jobs have great benefits. Sometimes benefits take up that slack on pay in the long run.

And if you wanted to get ahead in the teaching business, you either get more hours, another degree and go up on the pay scale. And I never said it was simple. Getting what you want in life is never simple.


Teachers are paid by the government in that our salaries are paid by tax payer dollars, but it is not a government job. We are not receiving the great govt. benefits of which you speak. As for your suggestion on how to move up the pay scale, how exactly do you expect people who are struggling to get by to pay for more hours to move up the pay scale? Additionally, we are one of the few professions, that I know of, in which you must take continuing ed to stay licensed yet your employer does not help foot any of the bill. My district is one of the highest paying in the state of Kansas and you can earn $72,000 if and only if you have a doctorate degree and you have been teaching 17 years!!

I am not complaining about my job for the sake of complaining. I love my job and have long since accepted that the good feelings I get from it are not going to pay the electric bill. My point is that the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality has got to stop. If it were that easy then many would not be in the boat that they are currently in. I have students whose parents are struggling to put food on the table. Yet, there are those of you here that suggest that they can just find several grand a year to send their kids to community college. Are you serious?????
I always think back to one of my favorite students I had when I taught in Texas. His mom was doing the best she could to get by, but jobs were scarce, Dad was nowhere to be found. So what did she do, she became a prostitute. She and her kid lived in a studio apartment and before a client came over my student would have to hide under the bed. Take a moment for that image to sink in. Can we as a nation really sit back and expect the goodwill of the very wealthy to be the one thing that breaks this cycle? I don't think so.

[SarahMD]

Not to mention that paying back a loan from an online university is like paying back 5 loans for a community college. I used to go to a community college for about $150 per credit hour and online is nearly 5 times as much... which I've taken into consideration but I'm attending DeVry University online AND I have the option of going to campus (hour and a half away is the closest one). As far as online schools you just have to make 100% sure they are accredited for the region/area you are living or hope to soon live.

[Babette]

Thank you so much for all the responses. I still can't say that I think that distribution of wealth via higher taxes for those who are better off financially is a bad thing - but I do thank each of you for your responses and the subsequent discussions. Since a great many points have been brought up, I think I'd be better off to re-read and respond directly! *smiles*

[kjbstevens]

There are many many different online universities. Many top US universities offer fully online degrees now and you pay the same instate tuition as if you went and lived on campus there without paying housing, gas, or babysitting. It's really amazing for adult learners. Penn St, Maryland, and Virginia Tech I know all offer full degrees online.

[BeckyO (AlmostMex)]

Many people don't realize that more and more community colleges are offering an increasing amount of online classes. At least at my community college, the cost is not that much more than a regular class. Thankfully I already have a bachelor's degree but even so, I've been taking one class at a time to "better myself" and improve my marketability on the job market just in case I need it at some point. DH has been in school for the last 3 years as well, first full-time at the community college and now taking 1-2 classes a semester at a 4-year university located 35-40 minutes from our house. We are not rich, we earn under 50k combined a year, so yes it is a sacrifice for tuition and books, but not nearly 5 times as much as regular tuition.

[kjbstevens]

Many people don't realize that more and more community colleges are offering an increasing amount of online classes. At least at my community college, the cost is not that much more than a regular class. Thankfully I already have a bachelor's degree but even so, I've been taking one class at a time to "better myself" and improve my marketability on the job market just in case I need it at some point. DH has been in school for the last 3 years as well, first full-time at the community college and now taking 1-2 classes a semester at a 4-year university located 35-40 minutes from our house. We are not rich, we earn under 50k combined a year, so yes it is a sacrifice for tuition and books, but not nearly 5 times as much as regular tuition.

Same as the ones here. We don't live within an hour of 4 year school but we can go to any in the state online to take undergrad and grad classes. These degrees say no where on them you went online or did anything other than get your education like any other student.

[Babette]

I think primarily because the United States is a predominantly Capitalist society and the tenets we hold dear as a nation have to do with working hard and being able to achieve anything. That's why so many people want to come here, right? Land of opportunity and all that...

While this may be true for some, I also believe that many come for the freedoms that we enjoy.

I don't have a problem spreading the wealth to people that are struggling temporarily, but I have a real problem when I think of my tax dollars going to someone who is just living off the govt. teat, so to speak.

What about issues that are for the "over all" good of the entire nation; not just individuals. For example, if higher education were free to all it would benefit every citizen and then in turn our country.

[Babette]

I'm so tired of discussions like this. It makes my heart hurt. People struggle every day, kids go to sleep hungry while their parents cry with worry over how to pay the rent and take turns working around the clock to keep their family treading water. They can't get anywhere because it takes money to make a dramatic change like re-education or a job change. The amount of time between last paycheck and first paycheck can break some families.

Your posts are always so insightful and spot on! These are my exact thoughts ... there are many people who do honestly try, again and again, and "it" just doesn't happen for them.

[Babette]

I have a big problem with the fact that the wealthy STAY wealthy, the poor has little or no chance, and the working class seems to be the ones who do all the work. I personally feel there should be a straight percentage tax. You make $x...and you pay %x on that money ... period ... done. no "tax breaks", write offs, etc. That way, EVERYONE would know where they stand financially. I believe it would give incentive to those people who are struggling, working two or more jobs just to stay afloat ... at least they would know the government was not going to take their hard earned money, and be able to invest in the economy and their future.

This would make a lot of sense - and put all the accountants and tax attorneys out of work! LOL The only problem would be how to fix the social security issue. Of course, there would also be no advantage to owning a house ... which might make people more comfortable with not having to kill themselves for that part of the "dream."

[Babette]

Do the working poor even pay taxes here? I remember back when I was younger and making under $35k per year, I would file my tax form and get all that I paid in back as a refund. I never owed anything. Only now, as a business owner, am I having to pay tax every year. And, believe me, my business is not even earning $15k per year and yet I'm still paying tax.

I can say that this was not true for me. I never got back everything I put in - not even close.

Anyway, to give the working poor a handout from the rich seems, to me, to be another form of social welfare. If you want to give the working poor more assistance, do that through social programs funded by generous supporters (private charities, church groups, etc.). It seems counterproductive to force the rich to give the handouts when these same people are the ones who create the jobs and other amenities so that the working class can earn a living. I get the impression that if the rich are forced to give up more in tax, then they have less incentive to grow their own wealth. So maybe they spend down their wealth so that they don't have to pay the tax. Then what?

I don't see why someone would have less incentive to grow their wealth. So just because they might have to pay an extra 5% in taxes they are going to turn down say an extra 100,000 dollars? I don't see that really happening, IMO.

[Babette]

Capitalism works through the exploitation of labour (and other resources) for profit. There's no charitable intention involved. Only fair, in my view, that people who make money from the effort of OTHER PEOPLE pay some of it towards the common good, including the very people who make their money for them.

Playing devil's advocate (although I do tend to agree with you) - who determines what is "common good?" And how do we do that? Each person is going to have their own opinions on that.

[Babette]

Oh and don't the super rich already "find" ways to cut down that tax they pay?? lol Don't take that wrong it's just that as someone who saw 1000's of corporate taxes cross her desk and had to inspect them I can honestly say my head (as well as my coworkers heads) spun at some of the things these people could write off!!! You honestly wouldn't believe it if you didn't see it!! I've seen super, duper, famusly well known people write off enough to have almost 0 liability!

This is my understanding as well. Knowing this, how can we say that making those people pay into the system is a bad thing?

[cassie-in-texas]

Thank you so much for all the responses. I still can't say that I think that distribution of wealth via higher taxes for those who are better off financially is a bad thing - but I do thank each of you for your responses and the subsequent discussions. Since a great many points have been brought up, I think I'd be better off to re-read and respond directly! *smiles*

omgosh, you are going to try to comment on all the posts? This thread has grown faster than I can even read! Good luck on your posting, since I think this will be on page 9 or so! It has been a fascinating read; I hardly ever make the time to read all the posts in a long thread, but I did with this one. Thanks for starting the thread, it's been very enlightening.

Correction - Page 10!

[Babette]

Why should I be penalized just because I was more successful than you? (Using you and me as an example - no way I am anything approaching "rich" other than in spirit lol.) I think an even percentage across the board - perhaps with less tax shelters for the mega rich is the ONLY way to be FAIR.

If you want to talk about actually being "fair", that is.

I TOTALLY agree with this. The more I think about it, the more I think that it should be a complete even percentage and no more deductions, shelters, etc. Then everyone would be on equal footing. I think many of the divisions that we see and/or hear about is due to the fact that the working poor KNOW that the rich can find all those loopholes, tax shelters, etc - and really, how can you not be upset by that?

[Babette]

It gives more power to the gov't instead of the people. It's a form of the gov't stepping into everyday lives and injecting themselves by doing what they believe is right mostly instead of people deciding how to give out money. It will be a big ender to charitable giving. Our society has been going about things completely wrong. I have no problem with a CCC or our gov't hiring people that are poor for their contract workers because it teaches job skills and cuts gov't costs, but just handing out money or allowing welfare checks like here in our states to go towards beer and lottery tickets does nothing to help their children's future. Responsibility in the people getting the money needs to come instead of something for nothing. If they'd teach job skills and break the irresponsibility it would help our future much better.

I don't think that raising taxes is meant to just go into welfare. I believe that there are many programs that would benefit that are essential to giving people those "hands up" type of help. Who's going to teach folks new skills if we don't have the money to have those classes?

[Babette]

I think that most Americans want to live in a society where hard work is rewarded, I've not met anyone who is in favor of rewarding laziness. When you have so much wealth concentrated in such a small percentage of the population, I think the argument that you can just "work hard" to be successful falls flat. When you have 1% holding 50% of the nation's wealth, and the gap between rich and poor continually widens, you can't say that those few have "earned" it or worked harder than everyone else. The wealth hasn't been trickling down it's just blown upward and been spread sideways. I don't see how thinking there should be a more fair distribution of wealth is asking for something for nothing. I'm not saying everyone should have the same, there will be rich and poor always, but I think the current breakdown of wealth is disgraceful.

This is particularly true with inherited wealth. Those people didn't work for anything ... it was just handed to them and yet, they receive all the perks.

[Babette]

I agree with Dianne's statement. Our poor here compared to other places is a totally eye opener. Not having cable is totally different than not having any food or water for a week.

I don't think that anyone is going to say that because a person doesn't have cable they are "poor." We do have a huge homeless population in this country. I believe that in a country such ours, we should have no homeless - no one going hungry.

[Babette]

Here's my problem, we as a country are so worried about giving the poor money that in contrast companies like AIG spend almost $100,000 on an English fox hunt. My outrage is more towards the big fat cat that don't give a hoot except for what goes in their pocket.

Absolutely agree. This type of behavior is completely disgusting.

[Babette]

Almost every person who has spoken out in this thread against the distribution of wealth mentions working hard and getting an education. Am I the only one who sees the irony in the fact that our educators are highly educated, work their asses off and are often part of the working poor due to inadequate compensation. Don't tell me that if I worked harder I would get ahead. Because I am working myself to the bone to educate children like yours and I am still scrapping by. It is just not that simple.

No, you're not the only one! I also took out student loans and am still paying them back. Sadly, having a degree didn't guarantee me a higher paycheck! There are plenty of people who work very hard, every day - and yet do not get ahead.

[Babette]

I hope I don't interrupt anything by jumping in and answering the PO's question.

At one point in our lives, my dh and I struggled, too. However, we never ever, not once used public assistance for anything. We always made it on our own, no matter how rough it was. Both of us spent half our lives in school, working hard to get where we are now. Now that we are here, we don't want to share. Period. We worked for it. We keep it. We give to charity and we pay taxes, but we don't need a Robin Hood coming in and telling us that we need to pay up more because we made it. Nope, that's not sitting right with me.

I understand this, really I do. But as a nation ... how do we make our country work if not for taxes? If the poor don't have the money to pay into the system, and the rich don't pay more - where does that leave our country?

[Babette]

omgosh, you are going to try to comment on all the posts? This thread has grown faster than I can even read! Good luck on your posting, since I think this will be on page 9 or so! It has been a fascinating read; I hardly ever make the time to read all the posts in a long thread, but I did with this one. Thanks for starting the thread, it's been very enlightening.

Correction - Page 10!

lol lol ... no I'm not that dedicated Cassie!! But, I've really enjoyed reading this thread as well ... and now I won't be scared to start another! I agree, it's been great to get everyone's views and opinions.

[hellosunshine]

If only those on corporate welfare were talked about as harshly as those of us hoping to get more of our share of the wealth to send our kids to college, to keep our homes, to keep our jobs, etc. . . our country would be a much better place. But, instead, I read about the poor or middle class defending the rights of the rich to run this economy into the ground. People are less concerned about the $1 trillion+ going to bail out corporations right now and the hundreds of billions each year in corporate handouts than about some people cheating on welfare. Welfare for the poor has limits, corporate welfare has no limits.

And no one can go to a nationally ranked or state university for $3,000 a year--try $20,000 minimally. Tuition is just one expense--thousands are added on in fees and expenses. Community colleges are very limited in what they offer and the types of student they serve, so they are not a good choice for many students. Some states don't even have community colleges--we have two-year technical schools--what's that going to do for a pre-med student or many others?

And about those income taxes--no matter what kind of sad picture you try to paint, the fact is that the very richest still pay only 22% or less in income taxes, regardless of their being in a highest tax bracket. It's misleading to say they are in a 35% bracket, or 75% bracket or whatever, because they don't actually pay that percentage. Redistributing the wealth would require the wealthiest to pay their fair share and give up the corporate welfare and welfare for the rich programs.

[scribler]

I understand this, really I do. But as a nation ... how do we make our country work if not for taxes? If the poor don't have the money to pay into the system, and the rich don't pay more - where does that leave our country?

The problem is that it's not always about paying more taxes, so that others pay less taxes. It's about some people paying more taxes so that others can get back more than they pay in. I think that is what is rubbing a lot of people the wrong way.

[hellosunshine]

Are you worried about the Bill Gates' and Warren Buffetts' paying more in taxes? Believe me, they can afford it. In fact, they think they themselves should be paying more.

In Obama's plan, no one is getting anything back that hasn't paid in taxes. For those who haven't paid income tax, but have paid social security taxes (which is anyone who has worked) a refund/rebate will be granted--but they have still paid taxes--it's not something for nothing--they paid what our government required.

So, my question, does it truly make you so indignant that billionaires and millionaries will have to fork over more of their money and those making so little that they don't even have to pay income tax will get a little something? Is that what this whole debate is about?

[FrenchRuby]

Playing devil's advocate (although I do tend to agree with you) - who determines what is "common good?" And how do we do that? Each person is going to have their own opinions on that.

I think everyone agrees that things like roads, waste disposal, basic education, etc are 'common goods' that are necessary for the survival of society. Beyond that, deciding what are 'common goods', ie things that society as a whole should pay for, is a matter for the people. That's what democracy is for - you vote for the candidate whose view is most closely aligned with your own. In theory at least.

Wow, full circle! Cool!

[Gina.Maria]

UNO! :lol

We were talking about FEDERAL INCOME TAX....which I thought would be obvious.

Oh, and typically the richer you are...the more you spend therefore the more sales tax you pay.
The more property you own, the more property tax you pay.

RUMMY!

No, federal income tax was never explicitly specified as the only contribution that made any difference. Those with no federal tax liability were lumped into a group called "Non-taxpayers" and treated as money-grubbing welfare frauds by the posters here. The fact is, all citizens in the U.S. (and even non-citizens if you want to get technical) are taxpayers of one sort or another.

Plus, very few tax credits are refundable. Check it out (http://www.1040.com/site/federaltaxes/taxcredits/tabid/80/default.aspx). I feel like I'll have to post this in every thread that mentions taxes.

Regarding the wealthy spending more, I have to disagree. If they spent almost all of their paycheck (living paycheck to paycheck like the poor) you'd be correct, but they save or invest a high percentage of their earnings in order to (what's that?) create more wealth for themselves. Truth is, spending reaches a point of "Terminal Velocity" where a reasonable person earning $500,000 isn't really spending more than a person earning $200,000.


Which of these is Paris Hilton, I'd like to know.

There is no problem with the concept that you can achieve anything with hard work and/or that hard work will be rewarded with prosperity.

However, the world doesn't actually work like that. There are plenty of lazy people who have more money than they'll ever need, and sadly - millions and millions who will work hard all their lives and never know what its like to be financially secure. It bothers me that there is some sort of automatic assumption that people who have lots of money are more deserving of it than others. There is being prosperous as a result of hard work, and then there is obscene wealth, that IMHO, nobody on earth has ever worked 'hard enough' to deserve to have that much wealth when so many others have so little.

Yet others see that kind of wealth as evidence of the success of capitalism, and applaud it. I don't get that.

Wouldn't you love to see how our world would change if, upon our death, all cash and assets went into the national treasury and our offspring were forced to get a job and build their own wealth? Where would Paris Hilton be in that event? Hmmm? Our society doesn't reward talent, hard work and dedication - it rewards luck, inheritance and greed.

(NO, I'M NOT ADVOCATING STRIPPING INHERITANCES FROM HEIRS - IT'S JUST AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE.)

::snip::
The cost to attend is around $1500 a semester - MANY of my students are on financial aid-- not loans. So that is $3000 a year if you are paying out of pocket- $250 a month. Yes that is a sizeable amount of money.

::snip::

Spend a few moments in your school's financial aid office and learn what Financial Aid is. For overwhelming numbers of students and their parents, student financial assistance comes in the form of federally guaranteed subsidized and unsubsidized student loans. Grants are only awarded to exceptionally needy students (which, granted, is probably a growing sector in our population) and everyone else gets loans that they're allowed to defer until 6 months after graduation.

If obtaining a degree was priority #1 for someone, she might have to consider moving closer to a college. I know that is easy for me to say though, I grew up moving every few to 6 months and so 'moving' is not a terribly big deal to me.;)

Or

google 'Online universities' . I was really surprised (and intrigued) to find out recently that there are so many 'online' options nowdays.

Hmm... Let's see... Moving - rental deposits, utilities deposits, moving van rental, paying for incentives for friends to help - all this requires money that many just don't have. Plus, we're not really talking about a single, childless person at this stage of the debate. We're talking mostly about families with children so there has to be a job involved in the move, as well.

Also, the cost of online universities is prohibitive for many and the success of students in these programs is not nearly as high as those in actual classrooms. Instructors can have a difficult time identifying students who are not comprehending the material and, without a human connection, there's little investment in follow-through. Plus, we're not just talking about people with computers and internet connectivity, are we?

[scribler]

Are you worried about the Bill Gates' and Warren Buffetts' paying more in taxes? Believe me, they can afford it. In fact, they think they themselves should be paying more.

In Obama's plan, no one is getting anything back that hasn't paid in taxes. For those who haven't paid income tax, but have paid social security taxes (which is anyone who has worked) a refund/rebate will be granted--but they have still paid taxes--it's not something for nothing--they paid what our government required.

So, my question, does it truly make you so indignant that billionaires and millionaries will have to fork over more of their money and those making so little that they don't even have to pay income tax will get a little something? Is that what this whole debate is about?

First, there is a huge jump between someone making $250,000 a year and someone making Warren Buffett or Bill Gates style money. Second, I never said I was against an increase in taxes for the wealthy. (And I am not a fan of Bill Gates, so you can even charge him more taxes than everyone else for all I care.) What I said is that my problem with tax credits is that some of those credits allow persons who have already reached zero tax liability to get more back than they paid in. I think it's great that those who really struggle to make ends meet receive back the money they paid in. They need it. What I am against is them receiving more back than they paid in under the guise of "tax cuts". If they need governmental aide, then I hope they get it. However, lets be honest and call it government aide not a "tax cut".

If you can provide me with credible information showing that none of Obama's proposed tax cuts don't include credits which allow you to receive more than you paid in, then I will rethink my opinion of Obama's plan. Until then, I will continue to worry that Obama's tax cuts will allow people to receive back more money than they paid in.

[Gina.Maria]

How about evidence that McCain has proposed a fully refundable tax credit?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/mccain-tax-jab.html
OR
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_welfare.html

[txmusicmom]

s.

And no one can go to a nationally ranked or state university for $3,000 a year--try $20,000 minimally. Tuition is just one expense--thousands are added on in fees and expenses. Community colleges are very limited in what they offer and the types of student they serve, so they are not a good choice for many students. Some states don't even have community colleges--we have two-year technical schools--what's that going to do for a pre-med student or many others?

Community colleges aren't what they used to be- it used to be where you went if you couldn't get into a 4 year university- Personally I teach at one- you get the full range of students. There is a very large number of professors with PhD. There is no research so they teach the classes and devote their time and effort to the students. It is very common in our area for students to attend community college for the core classes and transfer to 4 yr university. Some of our brightest and best have done this. ( By the way -- transfer scholarships are based on your performance in community college--not SAT/ACT- my son is getting $9,500 just in transfer scholarship to our local private university.) He lives at home thus saving $9000 in living costs.

My husband works at a technical college. Guess what??? These students OFTEN graduate with a 2 year degree and instantly get a job making more than a lot of 4 year degree graduates. It's one of the best kept secrets in education. THEN many of them get a job and their employer helps pay for them to complete their 4 year degree. Frankly the students get jobs making more than their instructors :p

We don't want our kids to have student loans to content with. It's our choice.

I attended a prestigious private university ( not Ivy League)- which an incredible reputation. But I still got laid off after 1 year on the job when the medical field changed the way Medicare was reimbursed- hiring freezes everywhere.

I believe there are many, many fine institutions out there.

Bottom line for us- Can we afford it?

[txmusicmom]

s.

And no one can go to a nationally ranked or state university for $3,000 a year--try $20,000 minimally. Tuition is just one expense--thousands are added on in fees and expenses. Community colleges are very limited in what they offer and the types of student they serve, so they are not a good choice for many students. Some states don't even have community colleges--we have two-year technical schools--what's that going to do for a pre-med student or many others?

Community colleges aren't what they used to be- it used to be where you went if you couldn't get into a 4 year university- Personally I teach at one- you get the full range of students. There is a very large number of professors with PhD. There is no research so they teach the classes and devote their time and effort to the students. It is very common in our area for students to attend community college for the core classes and transfer to 4 yr university. Some of our brightest and best have done this. ( By the way -- transfer scholarships are based on your performance in community college--not SAT/ACT- my son is getting $9,500 just in transfer scholarship to our local private university.) He lives at home thus saving $9000 in living costs.

My husband works at a technical college. Guess what??? These students OFTEN graduate with a 2 year degree and instantly get a job making more than a lot of 4 year degree graduates. It's one of the best kept secrets in education. THEN many of them get a job and their employer helps pay for them to complete their 4 year degree. Frankly the students get jobs making more than their instructors :p

We don't want our kids to have student loans to content with. It's our choice.

I attended a prestigious private university ( not Ivy League)- with an incredible reputation. But I still got laid off after 1 year on the job when the medical field changed the way Medicare was reimbursed- hiring freezes everywhere.

I believe there are many, many fine institutions out there. My dd and I visited a state university with the largest music school in the country-
Cost to live on campus without any grants, scholarships, etc- $14,000

I realize price is also a regional thing.

Bottom line for us- Can we afford it?

[txmusicmom]

America is the land of opportunity- back in our earliest times-- you hitched your wagon.....went out and made a place for yourself- you built your house ( maybe with some neighbors help) you farmed your crops......

It's really NOT the governments job to be the safety net. Even social security wasn't meant to be someone's entire retirement...........

I think that is the job of charities and churches.......people helping people........not because it's a mandate.

How do you think it would go over-- if when their was a barn raising- you had to attend by order of the state? Now if you didn't and that was your practice-- you might get less help when you need a barn raised???

I have always been in the one income- make it work category- Just last year we became a 2 income family. So NOW I know how the other side feels ( even though we're far from rich.........we just have some wiggle room because we still live like we used to- frugally- ) I work hard for my money- and spent hours developing my online classes. I don't want to be mandated to give MORE of it-- not everyone makes an extra 100,000.

GREAT EXAMPLE--

Those of you who design...........how would you feel if your store all of a sudden increased their percentage of your sales.........to share the wealth with the smaller designers who didn't make as much as you? You put hours into your work. Maybe they don't ( which is fine.......I'm just using this as an example.)Say you work 30 plus hours a week - and they just work 10 hours- or maybe you've been around a while and your work is just OUTSTANDING-- while theirs may /may not be outstanding.

Or take it a step further-- how about if your store........was taxed at a higher rate to share the wealth with smaller store sites?

Just a thought?

[Gina.Maria]

You're discounting the fact that students attending private technical schools easily accumulate education debt at a higher rate than those attending traditional postsecondary schools. Credit-for-credit, private postsecondary trade and technical schools are more expensive than their public competition and many lack the support of corporate and foundational funding that assists students who choose a university education.

If we want to make a real difference in lives (our own as well as those less fortunate because we'd all benefit) we need to fund technical education as we do primary and secondary education. A program in Arizona (http://www.evit.com/index.html)allows high school students with no aptitude or desire to continue on to college to participate in vocational training in several fields - fire-fighting, broadcasting, culinary arts, aesthetics, interior design, medical assisting and many others. They complete minimum diploma requirements in their "home" school then attend their vocational training for half a day or thereabouts. This is how we promote employment to the masses and lift people up and out of poverty.

[Kim2002]

RUMMY! No, federal income tax was never explicitly specified as the only contribution that made any difference. Those with no federal tax liability were lumped into a group called "Non-taxpayers" and treated as money-grubbing welfare frauds by the posters here. The fact is, all citizens in the U.S. (and even non-citizens if you want to get technical) are taxpayers of one sort or another.

Just a clarification.....I was referring to Federal Income Tax when I made my original statement. And I wasn't suggesting that non-taxpayers be treated as money-grubbing welfare frauds. I hope you weren't suggesting that's what I was saying. :)

As a matter of fact, I do think there is a place for social help. But I truly think it should come from sources that WANT to help the needy and not necessarily from the government. I give to the needy as often as I am able to and I am not wealthy by any means. I remember what it is like to go month to month not knowing if we'd have enough money to pay all the bills and still have some left for food. But we never asked for help cuz we felt we could do it on our own (and we did). But if I wanted to get help, I certainly wouldn't go to the government for it. I would ask for help from family, friends, charitable groups, etc.

[HappyMc]

I give you a different one:
Way back in the days, I used to work for an upscale second-hand furniture store. Our commission would go lower the higher the sales price. It turned out that the store made a lot more money on the high-end, low-commission items than the low-end high-commission items because percentage wise the low-commission items brought in less money while using up more floor space.

Anyway, what I am trying to say is that if you keep putting the burden on the higher income group, this group will eventually fight back by finding ways to pay no taxes at all.

Another thing to consider is that in DC is takes a lot of people to Tango. All this talk about tax cuts and tax raising right now does not impress me much. It will change the day after election.

[Kim2002]

I TOTALLY agree with this. The more I think about it, the more I think that it should be a complete even percentage and no more deductions, shelters, etc. Then everyone would be on equal footing. I think many of the divisions that we see and/or hear about is due to the fact that the working poor KNOW that the rich can find all those loopholes, tax shelters, etc - and really, how can you not be upset by that?

A flat tax sounds good, but I haven't really read up on it so I don't know all the details. Does it completely exempt those making under a set dollar amount? I ask because currently there is a lump of people who don't pay any federal income tax at all and moving to a flat tax on general spending would actually make them pay more, leaving them with even less than if we kept the current tax system in place. Right?

[tammy1999]

A flat tax sounds good, but I haven't really read up on it so I don't know all the details. Does it completely exempt those making under a set dollar amount? I ask because currently there is a lump of people who don't pay any federal income tax at all and moving to a flat tax on general spending would actually make them pay more, leaving them with even less than if we kept the current tax system in place. Right?

You should really read the Fair Tax plan. Its a great book, great idea and it works for all Americans. Not just a few. Its a National consumption tax. I'm not going into great detail of it because there are so many here that would rather shoot it down before they read the book. You can also go to the Fair Tax website and find out alot more on the subject too.

[tammy1999]

I give you a different one:
Way back in the days, I used to work for an upscale second-hand furniture store. Our commission would go lower the higher the sales price. It turned out that the store made a lot more money on the high-end, low-commission items than the low-end high-commission items because percentage wise the low-commission items brought in less money while using up more floor space.

Anyway, what I am trying to say is that if you keep putting the burden on the higher income group, this group will eventually fight back by finding ways to pay no taxes at all.

Another thing to consider is that in DC is takes a lot of people to Tango. All this talk about tax cuts and tax raising right now does not impress me much. It will change the day after election.

So right! Our country is actually run by the people who consume products. The more we consume, the better off our country is. The less we consume, the more our country hurts.

[FrenchRuby]

You really need to read the Story of Stuff.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

If obtaining a degree was priority #1 for someone, she might have to consider moving closer to a college. I know that is easy for me to say though, I grew up moving every few to 6 months and so 'moving' is not a terribly big deal to me.;)

And how would we sell our home in this market? Could we get a new mortgage during this credit freeze- with which to buy the new CLOSER home and put a roof over all 3 of our kids' heads as well as my elderly mom's?

Or

google 'Online universities' . I was really surprised (and intrigued) to find out recently that there are so many 'online' options nowdays.

There's ONE university on this country that offers the degree our son is pursuing. University of Akron.

[Babette]

If we want to make a real difference in lives (our own as well as those less fortunate because we'd all benefit) we need to fund technical education as we do primary and secondary education. A program in Arizona (http://www.evit.com/index.html)allows high school students with no aptitude or desire to continue on to college to participate in vocational training in several fields - fire-fighting, broadcasting, culinary arts, aesthetics, interior design, medical assisting and many others. They complete minimum diploma requirements in their "home" school then attend their vocational training for half a day or thereabouts. This is how we promote employment to the masses and lift people up and out of poverty.

This is an excellent point. Not ALL students have the aptitude or the desire to attend college. Some may also not have the ability financially to attend - they may be the oldest child of the family who will need to help support the family and their younger siblings. If we had programs such as those described above in all our schools, many more people would graduate from high school in a better position and be prepared to achieve success in life.

[kjbstevens]

See Gina.Marie is something I totally agree with the vocational training. I believe that stuff is even more important than college for most people. If they'd worry about that more than calculus for people with no desire to be rocket scientist our country would be much better off with skilled workers out there. I know many that drop out of school would have probably been into that too. Many that drop out that I've been friend with don't do it because they aren't smart or have a desire to sit on their butts the rest of their life... many I've seen around here just aren't interested in doing paperwork because they know they aren't going to college. I really wish there was more emphasis on life skills over memorization of stuff many will never use again.

They've been cutting programs in VA and MD where I've been. They wouldn't even let people in the programs where I was at in Virginia if they thought you had any college hopes. Even though I graduated with honors I still think it would have been good to have a decent job training to make more money in college besides organizing afterschool programs like I did.

[Babette]

Even though I graduated with honors I still think it would have been good to have a decent job training to make more money in college besides organizing afterschool programs like I did.

TRUE! This would certainly help people who wish to go on to college as well. Let's help those students not incur horrendously huge debt before they even start out in life!

[Chreamps]

wish there was more emphasis on life skills over memorization of stuff many will never use again.:agree

I've thought the same thing, many a time.

[tammy1999]

There were alot of programs at my sons University to make ends meet while attending classes. You could work at the college and not pay tuition for one. There are alot of colleges out there where tuition isn't really high. Example again, is the University where my son went. And also, if you teach in a district that really needs your type of teaching, they will forgive alot of those federal loans you have from going to school. Where my son is teaching now, if he stays there 5 years, he will virtually have all of his loans forgiven. Yes, its not the school he wants to teach at, but he is thinking of his future and the fact he doesn't want to pay for loans all his life.

So again, I really think its up to the person to find out what schools are cheaper and what you can do while at school to not pay loans and what you can do after you leave college.

[Gina.Maria]

Just a clarification.....I was referring to Federal Income Tax when I made my original statement. And I wasn't suggesting that non-taxpayers be treated as money-grubbing welfare frauds. I hope you weren't suggesting that's what I was saying. :)

As a matter of fact, I do think there is a place for social help. But I truly think it should come from sources that WANT to help the needy and not necessarily from the government. I give to the needy as often as I am able to and I am not wealthy by any means. I remember what it is like to go month to month not knowing if we'd have enough money to pay all the bills and still have some left for food. But we never asked for help cuz we felt we could do it on our own (and we did). But if I wanted to get help, I certainly wouldn't go to the government for it. I would ask for help from family, friends, charitable groups, etc.

I was referring to this thread in general, as the OP did not in any way suggest that she only wanted an answer based on those who pay federal income tax only. Your statement was this: "Do the working poor even pay taxes here?" and does not address which class of citizen you're referring to, either. Your post didn't even cross my mind as I made that comment.

My point is this - there is no class of citizen, with the possible exception of prisoners - that does not pay taxes in this country and many of the posters since this thread started have made statements to the effect that people with zero federal income tax liability might very well be lazy, unambitious and perpetrators of fraud. Considering the lengths that some of the wealthy will go to to avoid taxes, I find this characterization pretty distasteful.

Regarding private charity handling our crisis of economy, that's just a very naive position to take in this century. These private, non-profit organizations and churches are unable to even identify their clients without the help of local welfare offices and other government agencies in most cases and their efforts overlap to the point of absurdity. I think I illustrated the problem with this view in my first post in this thread.

[Gina.Maria]

You should really read the Fair Tax plan. Its a great book, great idea and it works for all Americans. Not just a few. Its a National consumption tax. I'm not going into great detail of it because there are so many here that would rather shoot it down before they read the book. You can also go to the Fair Tax website and find out alot more on the subject too.

I find hanging our future on more consumption distasteful.

You really need to read the Story of Stuff.

Yeah, everyone in this forum needs to at least visit the site (http://www.storyofstuff.com/) and watch the video. It will open your eyes. :eek

[kjbstevens]

There were alot of programs at my sons University to make ends meet while attending classes. You could work at the college and not pay tuition for one. There are alot of colleges out there where tuition isn't really high. Example again, is the University where my son went. And also, if you teach in a district that really needs your type of teaching, they will forgive alot of those federal loans you have from going to school. Where my son is teaching now, if he stays there 5 years, he will virtually have all of his loans forgiven. Yes, its not the school he wants to teach at, but he is thinking of his future and the fact he doesn't want to pay for loans all his life.

So again, I really think its up to the person to find out what schools are cheaper and what you can do while at school to not pay loans and what you can do after you leave college.

This is really, really true for grad stuff. At many places if you grade or help teach undergrad classes you can get free tuition credits. My undergrad wasn't as lucky though but the tuition was cheap at the Universities I went too. My freshman year in 2000 at Virginia Tech was only $2400 for the year for tuition. Many state schools are decent deals. Stay away from the private schools if you can. They are where the huge costs come in between that and living on campus. That is what caught me on tuition doubling it.

[Tiffikat]

That's great for people that do not need to try to work a job to support their family while they "better themselves". I have repeatedly asked what these people should do but everyone so far seems to think there are easy solutions to paying for college and everyone should be able to do it. If that was the case trust me that many, many people would do it.

For example, I could not go to college for many, many years because I was denied financial aid and loans due to my parents credit. I had to work one and sometimes two jobs just to support myself and pay off bills that I incurred when my mother died. It wasn't until I turned 23 and could fill out a fafsa as independent from my parents that I was able to get loans.

There are many different reasons why someone would be unable to go to school even when they desperately want to do something better for themselves and their families. It bothers me that so many people assume that it is just so easy to go out and better yourself and get better jobs/education. It isn't. For those of us that have been able to do this we should consider ourselves very lucky. It is not the case for everyone. Please do not assume that just because you are able to do well that everyone has had the chances and opportunities you have had.

[Scorpiosue1102]

There were alot of programs at my sons University to make ends meet while attending classes. You could work at the college and not pay tuition for one. There are alot of colleges out there where tuition isn't really high. Example again, is the University where my son went. And also, if you teach in a district that really needs your type of teaching, they will forgive alot of those federal loans you have from going to school. Where my son is teaching now, if he stays there 5 years, he will virtually have all of his loans forgiven. Yes, its not the school he wants to teach at, but he is thinking of his future and the fact he doesn't want to pay for loans all his life.

So again, I really think its up to the person to find out what schools are cheaper and what you can do while at school to not pay loans and what you can do after you leave college.

I agree up to a point LOL. I think that there are many good colleges for nurses, teachers, etc., but if your dream is to be a mechanical engineer it's not so easy to find a cheap college/university. Even University of Illinois is $11k for state residents and over $24k for out of state. So then it goes to, do kids pick something other than what their dream is to do or do they go into serious debt for school? I wish I had an answer:lol

[scrapper_gal]

Not everybody can "better" themselves. Not all have the means or ability to do so. but more importantly, if we were to eliminate the working poor and lower classes of our society our infrastructure would collapse. Somebody needs to haul the trash from my neighborhood. When I go to a high end restaurant, I appreciate that there is someone in the kitchen who is going to wash my dishes for me. We need workers who are willing to perform these jobs to support the way of life that many of us so stubbornly cling to. And because these workers and services are vital to the functioning of our society I think we need to be able to assist the workers in these positions in every way possible.

Honestly, I think if we had less disparity between socioeconomic classes and less class warfare and were able to support low wage earners in a "liveable lifestyle" (that's my term) we could also solve part of our immigration crisis. We frequently hear that we can't deport illegal immigrants because of the vital services they perform. Well guess what...let's find a way to allow legal citizens to work these jobs and afford to live and maybe we can solve more than one crisis.

While I can not back the Obama/Biden ticket for many of their stands on social issues I think they are closer to hitting the mark on the economic stand. There so needs to be a third party for people like me...those who cling to the Republicans for social issues but are strict libertarians in their economic views.

[Gina.Maria]

Not everybody can "better" themselves. Not all have the means or ability to do so. but more importantly, if we were to eliminate the working poor and lower classes of our society our infrastructure would collapse. Somebody needs to haul the trash from my neighborhood. When I go to a high end restaurant, I appreciate that there is someone in the kitchen who is going to wash my dishes for me. We need workers who are willing to perform these jobs to support the way of life that many of us so stubbornly cling to. And because these workers and services are vital to the functioning of our society I think we need to be able to assist the workers in these positions in every way possible.

Honestly, I think if we had less disparity between socioeconomic classes and less class warfare and were able to support low wage earners in a "liveable lifestyle" (that's my term) we could also solve part of our immigration crisis. We frequently hear that we can't deport illegal immigrants because of the vital services they perform. Well guess what...let's find a way to allow legal citizens to work these jobs and afford to live and maybe we can solve more than one crisis.

While I can not back the Obama/Biden ticket for many of their stands on social issues I think they are closer to hitting the mark on the economic stand. There so needs to be a third party for people like me...those who cling to the Republicans for social issues but are strict libertarians in their economic views.

Thank you for injecting a bit of sanity to this discussion. It's true - higher education is not the answer for everyone and someone has to do the jobs that the rest of us don't want to. If we won't do it, why should we expect the person who will to live like a cockroach? Everyone deserves dignity, and hard work - even the kind that doesn't require a MENSA IQ - should be rewarded with a living wage.

[scrapper_gal]

Unfortunately, we have created a society where the rich get richer and the poor don't. I'm not willing to say that the poor get poorer because I'm not sure that's the case, however we do have an ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. While many Republicans revere Ronald Reagan (and much of it is deserved) many of the tax policies created as a result of Reaganomics set up the process whereby we would further extend this gap.

[hellosunshine]

scrapper_gal, Thank you for saying what I've been thinking, but not able to get through in my communications in any of these posts. I do believe the poor and less fortunate need to be helped, and as part of the American society, we all have obligations to each other.

We can look at many examples of what economic disparity creates, look at almost any of our inner urban areas--they look like the third world, and many of our rural areas look as bleak as parts of the third world. There is no reason for such dire poverty in this country with so much wealth. Other countries make the wealthiest pay much more than they do here and use the money in much better ways for the betterment of all, and those countries have a lot fewer problems with poverty, healthcare, crime, etc.

College education for anyone who wants it would enable our country to better compete. It used to be that sons and daughters followed their parents into the factory, but no more. Healthcare and new technologies require more education. Wouldn't it be better to invest in our youth to give them what they need to succeed than to have to support them in prison or in drug rehab. For many talented, intelligent young people, college is an impossible dream and there isn't any good excuse we have as a nation for that.

[Inkspots]

See Gina.Marie is something I totally agree with the vocational training. I believe that stuff is even more important than college for most people. If they'd worry about that more than calculus for people with no desire to be rocket scientist our country would be much better off with skilled workers out there. I know many that drop out of school would have probably been into that too. Many that drop out that I've been friend with don't do it because they aren't smart or have a desire to sit on their butts the rest of their life... many I've seen around here just aren't interested in doing paperwork because they know they aren't going to college. I really wish there was more emphasis on life skills over memorization of stuff many will never use again.

They've been cutting programs in VA and MD where I've been. They wouldn't even let people in the programs where I was at in Virginia if they thought you had any college hopes. Even though I graduated with honors I still think it would have been good to have a decent job training to make more money in college besides organizing afterschool programs like I did.

Oh so true! This is another area where I feel NCLB has been a joke. I'm from a family of math teachers who have been so stressed the past few years. Not all kids are meant to be taking algebra so early in life. As such they're just being passed along and struggling. The colleges then need remedial classes. At my mom's school the vocational programs are being cut and scaled back big time. Our school had one of the best vocational programs in the area and it's such a shame to see these kids being hit the way they are--and the teachers who are suddenly out of a job after YEARS in the system! The way CA is set up in math, all seniors would be taking calculus. Why? And I agree too that community college isn't the answer for everyone. My cousin is currently in a big-named school because it's one of only a few that has the program she wants.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

I so agree with what a lot of you are saying about education.
Our eldest is a bright young man. He got a small scholarship and is studying Emergency Management and will enter public service one day- and I could n;t be more proud of him, as he's had to work hard every step of the way. I work my tail off in the hopes that he won't have to take out any loans (if there are any left after this credit freeze, LOL!) And he will work for this as well.
Our middle child, our DD is almost 10 and is brilliant. She learns beautifully in the way the schools teach, tests well, is extraordinarily self- motivated- and I'll shut up now. :giggle. She's going to succeed academically.
Our youngest son is 7½- and he's a whole nuther animal. HE really have a challengestaying on t4rack and focused- he doesn't really care about reading and writing and math. But he's giufted mechanically. He can wire contyraptions and make things work- tell you what a regulator and transistor do. And he loves Social Studies and Science- he can tell you how things work, why they work that way. But he is considered the Child In Danger of Being Left Behind. Because no one teaches to his type of intelligence. No one validates his talents (except for us). But this is the kid that can build things, figure things out. He asked us a couple of months ago "How can there be no air in space, if the sun is burning and you need oxygen to burn things?"
I'm so glad Google is my friend.
But yeah- the system fails kids lkike himj. And vocational school may be up his ally- or being a machinist. But if that's what he wants, that is where we will do our utmost to see him thrive.

[lunafaerie]

Unfortunately, we have created a society where the rich get richer and the poor don't. I'm not willing to say that the poor get poorer because I'm not sure that's the case, however we do have an ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. While many Republicans revere Ronald Reagan (and much of it is deserved) many of the tax policies created as a result of Reaganomics set up the process whereby we would further extend this gap.

:clap Well said!!

[daly]

I so agree with what a lot of you are saying about education.
Our eldest is a bright young man. He got a small scholarship and is studying Emergency Management and will enter public service one day- and I could n;t be more proud of him, as he's had to work hard every step of the way. I work my tail off in the hopes that he won't have to take out any loans (if there are any left after this credit freeze, LOL!) And he will work for this as well.
Our middle child, our DD is almost 10 and is brilliant. She learns beautifully in the way the schools teach, tests well, is extraordinarily self- motivated- and I'll shut up now. :giggle. She's going to succeed academically.
Our youngest son is 7½- and he's a whole nuther animal. HE really have a challengestaying on t4rack and focused- he doesn't really care about reading and writing and math. But he's giufted mechanically. He can wire contyraptions and make things work- tell you what a regulator and transistor do. And he loves Social Studies and Science- he can tell you how things work, why they work that way. But he is considered the Child In Danger of Being Left Behind. Because no one teaches to his type of intelligence. No one validates his talents (except for us). But this is the kid that can build things, figure things out. He asked us a couple of months ago "How can there be no air in space, if the sun is burning and you need oxygen to burn things?"
I'm so glad Google is my friend.
But yeah- the system fails kids lkike himj. And vocational school may be up his ally- or being a machinist. But if that's what he wants, that is where we will do our utmost to see him thrive.

Miki,
YOur youngest sounds alot like my son! He asked me when when was about 5 what happened to the gas after I put it in the car.

"Well, it makes the car go." (was my answer at the time.:shrug)

"Yeah, but it goes in as a liquid and it never ever comes out again. What happens to it inside the car?" he said.

I had to 'look it up' later to explain the whole process in enough detail to satisfy him.

He had a very... um, bumpy road in public education. I eventually started homeschooling him in 6th grade. It made ALL the difference and we have seen a tremendous improvement in many, many areas (academic, social and behavior).

---I don't say that to imply I think everyone should (or could) homeschool...just stating what's really made a big diff for our son.:)

[daly]

And how would we sell our home in this market? Could we get a new mortgage during this credit freeze- with which to buy the new CLOSER home and put a roof over all 3 of our kids' heads as well as my elderly mom's?



There's ONE university on this country that offers the degree our son is pursuing. University of Akron.

Well, you have a point....when I was growing up, we lived in rented apartments, so it was easier to move. We had very little material possessions so we literally packed stuff in our car (no trailer needed) and just went.

It was simpler indeed. We did have a certain 'freedom' I guess... in that respect.

YOu know, when I was kid, I thought that everyone who owned their own home (or had a mortgage to own one ;)) was rich. funny how times have changed.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Miki,
YOur youngest sounds alot like my son! He asked me when when was about 5 what happened to the gas after I put it in the car.

"Well, it makes the car go." (was my answer at the time.:shrug)

"Yeah, but it goes in as a liquid and it never ever comes out again. What happens to it inside the car?" he said.

I had to 'look it up' later to explain the whole process in enough detail to satisfy him.

He had a very... um, bumpy road in public education. I eventually started homeschooling him in 6th grade. It made ALL the difference and we have seen a tremendous improvement in many, many areas (academic, social and behavior).

---I don't say that to imply I think everyone should (or could) homeschool...just stating what's really made a big diff for our son.:)

Boy they sound like 2 birds of a feather don't they? I have seriously tossed around the idea of homeschooling this one- but we butt heads so much the idea does scare me, LOL!

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Well, you have a point....when I was growing up, we lived in rented apartments, so it was easier to move. We had very little material possessions so we literally packed stuff in our car (no trailer needed) and just went.

It was simpler indeed. We did have a certain 'freedom' I guess... in that respect.

YOu know, when I was kid, I thought that everyone who owned their own home (or had a mortgage to own one ;)) was rich. funny how times have changed.


Me too. I grew up with my mom and grandparents (Dad split when I was 6 months old) and we lied in rented homes our whole life. Didn't have a car until I was in junior high. So the American Dream for me "pie-in-the-sky" style was owning a home someday!
Now DH's parents immigrated form Slovenia, and as a group, the immigrants really helped each other out- buying duplexes and letting new families rent on the cheap until they had saved up enough to buy a home. And home ownership was very much in the plan for that group. SO even when they were laid off, they may have been eating Hamburger Helper and mac-n-cheese 7 days a week- and they may have had seven kids in a 3 bedroom home, but thy kept thta home and yard clean and tidy and survived without Welfare and food stamps in the lean times.
It's funny how our upbringings really shape our outlooks.
When John and I first moved out, we rented in a dump- not many places rented to unmarried 18 year olds, LOL. We had a bed, dresser, night stand, table and 2 chairs. No stove, fridge, washer or dryer. A small B&W 13" TV. No living room furniture yet. But we had a blast in that place! We ended up working hard and saving up the money to throw our won wedding- church, reception hall, catered, photographer- the works within our means. THen we worked more to save up a down payment for a modest house, amnd enough that I could quit working when we started our family.
It WAS far simpler then. Now there are more goods as well as more services poepole think of as necessities.
A few years ago when my Mom needed to come and live with us, we needed a little more room- so we tossed around selling and buying a new home- but when I looked at the costs, it was far more inexpensive to renovate and add onto the house. I've never been so glad we chose that route as I am now. No, we didn't buy into the McMnasion with soaring ceilings and great rooms- but we have our home and it fits.

[daly]

Thank you for injecting a bit of sanity to this discussion. It's true - higher education is not the answer for everyone and someone has to do the jobs that the rest of us don't want to. If we won't do it, why should we expect the person who will to live like a cockroach? Everyone deserves dignity, and hard work - even the kind that doesn't require a MENSA IQ - should be rewarded with a living wage.

I am offended by this portion of your statement. My parents did those jobs at times and we were dirt poor. WE HAD NOTHING (MATERIALLY SPEAKING). But your characterization I lived like a cockroach is very distasteful to me.

Believe it or not, it IS possible to be poor and live a clean, honest, happy....yes! I said a happy life.

[daly]

Boy they sound like 2 birds of a feather don't they? I have seriously tossed around the idea of homeschooling this one- but we butt heads so much the idea does scare me, LOL!

Oh! I know! That's what took me so long to do it too! It was scary (at first) but when I look back on all we've accomplished....I feel so proud.

<don't get me wrong....there are still academic areas he is 'deficient' in...ugh. But all in all the situation is so much improved.>

[kjbstevens]

Believe it or not, it IS possible to be poor and live a clean, honest, happy....yes! I said a happy life.
I agree. I grew up in Appalchia and there are way more poor and people living under $20k in the area than above it. All of the jobs left in the late 90's so now most poor people that did work in factories just work job to job because that is all their is. A majority of my family is in this category and they do not live like cockroaches. They have tiny rented houses and not much in them, but it is clean and they are proud of anything they do get. I just don't think some people understand the difference in the different groups of poor and they get lumped in together.

I also still remember in my time older family members not having indoor plumbing and I'm only 26. There are still areas like that around outside of cities which most people tend of focus on having a lot of the problems.

[cheribear]

I am offended by this portion of your statement. My parents did those jobs at times and we were dirt poor. WE HAD NOTHING (MATERIALLY SPEAKING). But your characterization I lived like a cockroach is very distasteful to me.

Believe it or not, it IS possible to be poor and live a clean, honest, happy....yes! I said a happy life.

I'm sorry, but I thought that was what she WAS saying. People do these jobs and instead of expecting them to 'better themselves' and thinking its okay if they can't afford to live on what they make - people who do those jobs should be able to live, not extravagantly - but should be able to support themselves. She's not saying YOU lived like a cockroach, she's saying that people who do those jobs should be able to live as well as you did and if they no longer can, that is a societal problem.

And for my two cents, its not a 'hand out welfare!' problem - but a problem where we look at whether the compensation given to people for what they are doing is adequate - ie/ minimum wage not being a living wage.

[Gina.Maria]

Thanks, Cheri! I made a statement based on the fact that today's legal minimum wage is not enough for a person to live on their own with dignity. How you, Daly, managed to twist it to a criticism of your own life is beyond my comprehension. I meant we're expecting them to live like cockroaches - hidden from sight and in substandard housing.

At the current $6.55 hourly minimum wage, a person would have a maximum of $1135 (minus withoholding and payroll taxes) monthly, to responsibly drive a car, pay rent and utilities and provide healthful food. Difficult for a single person without roommates. How can we expect a family to do it? And minimum wage jobs don't usually come with paid health insurance so they're left out in the cold when something goes wrong and there's no money for well-checks so "silent killers" aren't detected until it's too late.

[kjbstevens]

If good amount of Americans would pay for the stuff they need to live instead of things to play with it would really help. There are people out there in debt not just because of medical bills and subprime mortages but because they had to have the newest/latest/greatest everything. The kids and younger people here have been taught if you don't own a house or have a nice car/clothes/stuff then you are of lower worth when people don't need that stuff to survive.

A living wage is very, very relative. It's different for all people. Here is another huge problem with it. Say an employer has $18 an hour to spend on labor. Is it better for our economy for him to hire 3 people at $6 an hour or only employ 1 at $18 and leave the other two with no employment at all. There are give and takes in everything and just because you personally wouldn't want that amount an hour, it doesn't mean there aren't people out that can't use that amount to live on and being able to live is what ultimately matters in the end. Yeah it might not be pretty but much better than nothing.
**Forgot to add if you want to increase the amount of money they have for hiring people, raising their taxes won't acheive that. More employment so less are on benefits to need the taxes so that companies can get the tax relief to hire more people or give raises is what I was trying to say and forgot to add it. That's the solution I see to a living wage is to get everyone employed and off the system so they don't need those taxes holding back raises and jobs. Yeah I'm just a little Republican on that compared to many things. I totally am opposite of Obama's stuff which I think is one of the biggest issues overriding the others.

[mrswresh]

The extremely rich may not be paying their fair share because there are so many tax shelters available to them. I have some serious questions about this.

But why should someone who has worked hard to be successful be responsible for more than their fair share? Where's the advantage to working hard? You know, it's not like winning the lotto where all of a sudden you have all this money in the bank and you don't know what to do with it or where it came from. I believe in helping people out - it's not that I am saying I don't want any of my tax dollars to help anyone. But what I am saying is why should I pay 30% if you are only paying 5%? How is that right or fair? Why should I be penalized just because I was more successful than you? (Using you and me as an example - no way I am anything approaching "rich" other than in spirit lol.) I think an even percentage across the board - perhaps with less tax shelters for the mega rich is the ONLY way to be FAIR.

If you want to talk about actually being "fair", that is.

But it seems like what people really want is something for nothing and we as a society have a richness disease whereby we think we deserve to be rich, even if it is on the back of someone else's work. We are a spoiled society who doesn't know how good we already have it. Even with our economic struggles of late, we have it relatively good. There are whole societies elsewhere in the world who struggle just to generate enough food to feed their people - forget about any health care. We are unbelievably rich as a country - free to pursue anything we want including religious freedom and the freedom to have these conversations. People need to quit worrying about how they are gonna get something for nothing and get busy being thankful. That changes the focus entirely.

What she said! :)

[cheribear]

But it seems like what people really want is something for nothing and we as a society have a richness disease whereby we think we deserve to be rich, even if it is on the back of someone else's work. We are a spoiled society who doesn't know how good we already have it. Even with our economic struggles of late, we have it relatively good. There are whole societies elsewhere in the world who struggle just to generate enough food to feed their people - forget about any health care. We are unbelievably rich as a country - free to pursue anything we want including religious freedom and the freedom to have these conversations. People need to quit worrying about how they are gonna get something for nothing and get busy being thankful. That changes the focus entirely.This is where I see things in an opposite way - whenever I see someone who is absolutely flithy rich, or even really, really well off - I don't see them paying more in taxes as allowing OTHERS to get something for nothing, or that the poor people are getting the benefits of that person's hard work. We assume the people who are rich deserve to be that rich, and while I have no doubt that many of them worked hard to get where they are - I am not inclined to believe that the vast majority people who work at least that hard will never see that kind of income - nor should they!

Oh, no. Sorry, but I see it the other way. I don't see if there is a way you can work 'hard enough' to make THAT MUCH money, without it really being off the backs of the poorer people who everyone is so worried will get anything off the backs of these rich people who shouldn't have to pay more than their fair share.

I don't care how honestly they make their money, or how much they give to charity, if you're making more than your 'fair share' of income, you should pay more than your fair share of taxes. There is no work on earth worth millions and millions of dollars a year, but yet we've made it that way, somehow. I just don't know how but for every person earning money like that, there are thousands of other people earning a whole lot less, who make it possible for the few very rich to earn what they do.

And I don't buy it that raising minimum wages is a big problem, people have to start changing how they think. Oh, this company can't afford to pay their workers a decent wage, whatever. They somehow manage to pay their CEO's and executives ridiculous amounts of money - and in so many cases cutting ONE of those positions or the pay for one of those positions could pay a wage for a few more, or ten more, or a hundred more employees for a whole year.

That's the problem with wealth like that - you can't be okay with people taking home THAT much money for doing (what??) and say taxing them more will cut jobs. If they didn't expect so much of the pie for themselves to start with, there might be more money to pay the hourly employees and give them decent benefits, etc.

Being in an area that is largely small family-run businesses - if they can make ends meet paying their employees at minimum wages at $8 - $10/hour, then surely to goodness everyone else can. None of our 'CEO's' are earning anywhere near the 6 figures, and they still manage to provide employment for people in our communities.

[Chreamps]

:clap:clap:clap

Cheri, agree wholeheartedly!

[Gina.Maria]

If good amount of Americans would pay for the stuff they need to live instead of things to play with it would really help. There are people out there in debt not just because of medical bills and subprime mortages but because they had to have the newest/latest/greatest everything. The kids and younger people here have been taught if you don't own a house or have a nice car/clothes/stuff then you are of lower worth when people don't need that stuff to survive.

A living wage is very, very relative. It's different for all people. Here is another huge problem with it. Say an employer has $18 an hour to spend on labor. Is it better for our economy for him to hire 3 people at $6 an hour or only employ 1 at $18 and leave the other two with no employment at all. There are give and takes in everything and just because you personally wouldn't want that amount an hour, it doesn't mean there aren't people out that can't use that amount to live on and being able to live is what ultimately matters in the end. Yeah it might not be pretty but much better than nothing.
**Forgot to add if you want to increase the amount of money they have for hiring people, raising their taxes won't acheive that. More employment so less are on benefits to need the taxes so that companies can get the tax relief to hire more people or give raises is what I was trying to say and forgot to add it. That's the solution I see to a living wage is to get everyone employed and off the system so they don't need those taxes holding back raises and jobs. Yeah I'm just a little Republican on that compared to many things. I totally am opposite of Obama's stuff which I think is one of the biggest issues overriding the others.

Life isn't just about survival. There has to be some reward beyond making it through the day without getting evicted. Why is it okay for someone who's lucky enough, by accident of birth, to be born into wealth to have safety, security and satisfaction but another, who's born to poverty and unable to escape, should be happy to "survive?" That's just sad. Should the poor never see a movie? Never go dancing? Never eat in a nice restaurant? Trapped in a minimum wage job path, they'd have to sacrifice everything in order to meet the standards set by many of you. Save, go to school, work hard, don't play, don't buy anything that you don't need... It's a pretty bleak existence and no wonder some find themselves falling prey to "easy credit."

Okay, so, for many of you, it's all about the hereafter? In that case, let go of the pursestrings and give it all away because you won't need it where you're going. Spread some joy now.

[kjbstevens]

Actually I am anti religion so it has nothing to do with that at all. It has to do with this tax raises are not going to come out of CEO's and out of the pockets of the rich. That is not going to end up being out of the pockets of the middle class in the loss of their jobs and benefits. The rich aren't going to sit and take the paycuts themselves. They are the ones in control on that and what motivation do they have for it? None because it's their business and they can run it as they see fit now matter how many of us think it's wrong. As we can see businesses are in trouble now and the lower and middle classes are the ones suffering out of it. If companies that employ them and make our goods don't thrive then neither do the rest of us.

[Gina.Maria]

That depends on how you define "trouble." For many businesses, not meeting a projected goal is trouble enough to require massive lay-offs. Even if that goal is a ridiculous increase in revenue. Many CEOs manage to meet their profit goals - enabling them to collect hefty pre-negotiated bonuses - by laying off staff or cutting projects. Businesses have forgotten one simple truth - they don't make money without workers. All the customers in the world won't make a business money if they've let all their workers go. Paying workers a decent living wage benefits everyone in the way that giving tax breaks to corporations doesn't. Well-paid or appropriately compensated workers are able to complete the capitalist cycle by becoming customers. Also, when they're better compensated, they are able to contribute to the tax base in a meaningful way, allowing us to eventually adjust higher tax brackets downward. That's the real meaning of "spread the wealth." Raise your poor out of poverty and everyone benefits.

[daly]

Life isn't just about survival. There has to be some reward beyond making it through the day without getting evicted. Why is it okay for someone who's lucky enough, by accident of birth, to be born into wealth to have safety, security and satisfaction but another, who's born to poverty and unable to escape, should be happy to "survive?" That's just sad. Should the poor never see a movie? Never go dancing? Never eat in a nice restaurant? Trapped in a minimum wage job path, they'd have to sacrifice everything in order to meet the standards set by many of you. Save, go to school, work hard, don't play, don't buy anything that you don't need... It's a pretty bleak existence and no wonder some find themselves falling prey to "easy credit."

Okay, so, for many of you, it's all about the hereafter? In that case, let go of the pursestrings and give it all away because you won't need it where you're going. Spread some joy now.

It is sad....but you know what's sadder?

Being poor AND Resentful and filled with ENVY.

Life has never been, never will be FAIR. It sucks sometimes. And we can wallow around in that or we can focus on THANKFULNESS. We volunteer our time and a portion (10%) of our monetary blessings (besides what the government takes!) to help those in need. I guess to some that is not enough....?

I would imagine that if we could include the really poorest people of the world in this conversation they would be amazed at a life that you would describe as 'bleak'

The story of Oprah Winfrey philanthropy comes to mind.....she built her school in Africa. Aparently she got some flack from some people who grumbled about why she didn't build the school in the USA? She said they looked into that but when she went up to American inner-city kids and asked them what they needed....they told her cell phone, brand name $150 shoes (sneakers, I think?), ipods. When she went to Africa, the kids told her uniforms (they aren't allowed to attend school if they don't have one), books, shoes, pencils.

Oh and another thought just came to me....
If the government taxation is really the very best way to help the poor in America, why don't liberal rich movie stars send in more of their money to US taxes when April 15th rolls around? I mean, couldn't they choose to 'pay in' more than is required?

They seem to choose to donate their money to private charitable organizations though. hmmmmmn.....

[kjbstevens]

The biggest argument I keep hearing is that get so much money. Taxing them is not going to take anything out of their pockets. The lower brackets aren't getting anything out of it. So what if we get more in our taxes back every year. We're just going to pay it all back out in price increases everywhere. It's not a solution at all. It's just going to raise prices even higher to where we need more tax relief because we can't afford the price of goods.

[kjbstevens]

Life isn't just about survival. There has to be some reward beyond making it through the day without getting evicted. Why is it okay for someone who's lucky enough, by accident of birth, to be born into wealth to have safety, security and satisfaction but another, who's born to poverty and unable to escape, should be happy to "survive?" That's just sad. Should the poor never see a movie? Never go dancing? Never eat in a nice restaurant? Trapped in a minimum wage job path, they'd have to sacrifice everything in order to meet the standards set by many of you. Save, go to school, work hard, don't play, don't buy anything that you don't need... It's a pretty bleak existence and no wonder some find themselves falling prey to "easy credit."

I find this actually showing me what you believe in the poor and why we are so different with it. I grew up with people that had no food, no stable house, no family, only the clothes on their back. The last thing they cared about was going to a movie or dancing. I personally don't even go out and spend all of that money to do that stuff. It's $9.50 just to go to a movie here. For all of us to go is the bill for our entire phone bill. Those are niceties in life. There are many, many free things out there that people like us that don't have spending money enjoy because we can't afford to go out and do those other things. You don't have to have extra money to blow on extras that only last a few minutes or hours to have a decent life. We go fishing or hunting for fun and add to our food supplies for the winter. You can live and not go support Hollywood. Life goes on without them.

[Gina.Maria]

It is sad....but you know what's sadder?

Being poor AND Resentful and filled with ENVY.

Life has never been, never will be FAIR. It sucks sometimes. And we can wallow around in that or we can focus on THANKFULNESS. We volunteer our time and a portion (10%) of our monetary blessings (besides what the government takes!) to help those in need. I guess to some that is not enough....?

I would imagine that if we could include the really poorest people of the world in this conversation they would be amazed at a life that you would describe as 'bleak'

The story of Oprah Winfrey philanthropy comes to mind.....she built her school in Africa. Aparently she got some flack from some people who grumbled about why she didn't build the school in the USA? She said they looked into that but when she went up to American inner-city kids and asked them what they needed....they told her cell phone, brand name $150 shoes (sneakers, I think?), ipods. When she went to Africa, the kids told her uniforms (they aren't allowed to attend school if they don't have one), books, shoes, pencils.

Oh and another thought just came to me....
If the government taxation is really the very best way to help the poor in America, why don't liberal rich movie stars send in more of their money to US taxes when April 15th rolls around? I mean, couldn't they choose to 'pay in' more than is required?

They seem to choose to donate their money to private charitable organizations though. hmmmmmn.....

So now all our poor are resentful and filled with envy? Because they what? want to experience more in life? I said the life described by so many (drawing from many different posts) of complete and utter sacrifice seemed bleak, not that the lives of all who are poor are bleak. You have a terrible habit of reading what you want into my posts and taking them entirely wrong. If you have a question about my intentions, maybe we should take this off-forum.

Who do you think makes our youth want what they do? Do you think they're born greedy? Our own culture has made it an imperative for kids to want what they don't need. They're bombarded with it everywhere - corporate sponsorship in schools, constant commercials and product placement, classmates that try to make them feel inferior because they don't have those $150 sneakers. I'd hate to be a child in today's world with the economic status I grew up in - well below poverty level. I'd be a pariah.

[tammy1999]

It is sad....but you know what's sadder?

Being poor AND Resentful and filled with ENVY.

Life has never been, never will be FAIR. It sucks sometimes. And we can wallow around in that or we can focus on THANKFULNESS. We volunteer our time and a portion (10%) of our monetary blessings (besides what the government takes!) to help those in need. I guess to some that is not enough....?

I would imagine that if we could include the really poorest people of the world in this conversation they would be amazed at a life that you would describe as 'bleak'

The story of Oprah Winfrey philanthropy comes to mind.....she built her school in Africa. Aparently she got some flack from some people who grumbled about why she didn't build the school in the USA? She said they looked into that but when she went up to American inner-city kids and asked them what they needed....they told her cell phone, brand name $150 shoes (sneakers, I think?), ipods. When she went to Africa, the kids told her uniforms (they aren't allowed to attend school if they don't have one), books, shoes, pencils.

Oh and another thought just came to me....
If the government taxation is really the very best way to help the poor in America, why don't liberal rich movie stars send in more of their money to US taxes when April 15th rolls around? I mean, couldn't they choose to 'pay in' more than is required?

They seem to choose to donate their money to private charitable organizations though. hmmmmmn.....

It all boils down to class warfare, simple as that. There are so many people in this country that thinks they can win the lottery or go on a reality show and win a $1,000,000 instead of putting all that hard work into working or learning a trade to get them out of a bad situation. Your Opray statement is just a prime example of how resentful they can be. I was glad to see she took that money to another country to support those children over there that really deserve it and appreciate it.

I'm so tired of hearing that some people can't "better themselves". Well, if they really wanted to they could. Simple as that. Or, maybe they don't want to. Fine, but don't blame the wealthy because you can't pull yourself out of the gutter.

I made the statement in another post about how wealthy our poor, compared to the rest of the world, is with their cell phones, large tvs and nice cars, etc. I was also slammed for saying our poor is fat and was told that is all they can afford is only food that will make them fat. Well, I'm sorry to say, that ain't true. Example: There is a family called the Duggars. You can find out all about them online. They have 17 children and the mom and dad. They all lived in a small ranch style home and they were able to go to places like Save A Lot and Aldi's to buy healthy food for their family of 19 and have wonderful meals. I've shopped at those stores and they are all over this country. Great prices in bulk.

They also live on the fathers salary, which wasn't very much. But, they also didn't have cable or the internet which helped save on money. Oh yea, the children aren't fat either. They have fun outside and are always helping out around the home.

I also have a really big problem with people not taking responsibility for what they do in their lives. I'm fixin to say something I know will make some upset, but if you can't afford to take care of yourself and your spouse, what makes you think you can afford to bring a child in this world. I have never understood this at all. I caught alot of talk over that because I only had one child. Well, we couldn't afford another one and because of that, we were able to pay our mortgage, buy a car when needed and live a decent life on a small salary.

And about the liberal giving to charity. Its widely known that liberals don't give to charity like conservatives do. They scream and hollar about how the poor doesn't have anything, but then again, they don't part with their own to help out. So much for the liberal's being the group for the "little people".

Sorry for the long post, but for some reason DST is not loading very fast at all. It's like I am on dial up on this website.

[kjbstevens]

I think the kids are being taught to be greedy by people telling them that they are supposed to be out owning this or that or going out and spending money. People can live and be happy doing activities that are free. You don't have to spend, spend, spend to keep your children happy. They need love and guidance instead of toys and material things especially those that don't last like seeing a movie in a theatre. For what a family goes to see one 2 hour movie many can have cable for an entire month. Even if kids when they are little they don't have toys they can play with sticks and rocks and have a good time. They've just been taught they have to have all of this other stuff especially by commericals. If you have money to go to a movie or blow on entertainment then I don't classify that as poor.

[Gina.Maria]

I find this actually showing me what you believe in the poor and why we are so different with it. I grew up with people that had no food, no stable house, no family, only the clothes on their back. The last thing they cared about was going to a movie or dancing. I personally don't even go out and spend all of that money to do that stuff. It's $9.50 just to go to a movie here. For all of us to go is the bill for our entire phone bill. Those are niceties in life. There are many, many free things out there that people like us that don't have spending money enjoy because we can't afford to go out and do those other things. You don't have to have extra money to blow on extras that only last a few minutes or hours to have a decent life. We go fishing or hunting for fun and add to our food supplies for the winter. You can live and not go support Hollywood. Life goes on without them.

And there's an investment involved with fishing and hunting, as well. It's a choice. Consider, though, that I grew up in a more urban area and hunting and fishing required a significant cash outlay whereas a movie was an almost-affordable luxury. You can't say that your choices are better than mine because you decide they are. There are a great many living in poverty who haven't even seen a forest or any hint of wildlife beyond rats and insects (and, Daly, before you jump on that, I am not suggesting they're living with the rats and insects. ;)) For some, guns, ammunition, fishing rods and tackle - these are niceties.

[NellieRose]

It is sad....but you know what's sadder?

Being poor AND Resentful and filled with ENVY.

Life has never been, never will be FAIR. It sucks sometimes. And we can wallow around in that or we can focus on THANKFULNESS.

Such an interesting statement considering it seems there is a good handful of angry and resentful people residing right here within our forums...they have shown themselves being both angry and resentful over others getting what they deem to be hand outs and are of the mindset that these people who get these so-called handouts haven't worked hard or hard enough. Perhaps it's those people who are worried about what everyone else is getting for "doing nothing" that should look inside themselves and be thankful for not only what they have in material things but for the opportunities they have had and the good fortune of the universe to not have been chosen to be one of the much less fortunate.

Have you ever worked with the poor? I have and I would be hard pressed to find one "poor" person that is angry and/or resentful...they are optimistically cautious that their situations will improve or that the next person that comes along to help them will actually help and not further exploit them....where are these angry and resentful people you speak of?

[kjbstevens]

It costs us maybe $10-15 a year and we got lots of meat out of it. I'm not say it's better but just saying there are things in life people can do besides just the things you believe are what they need to do to make them happy. Not all people are made happy by doing things you have to spend money on.

[NellieRose]

And about the liberal giving to charity. Its widely known that liberals don't give to charity like conservatives do. They scream and hollar about how the poor doesn't have anything, but then again, they don't part with their own to help out. So much for the liberal's being the group for the "little people".

Sorry for the long post, but for some reason DST is not loading very fast at all. It's like I am on dial up on this website.

Just what is your definition of "liberal"????? And where did you come up with this theory....it is painting a picture with a mighty broad brush.

The site is painfully slow today...I actually think dial-up is faster!

ETA: Liberal means:
1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/openhanded) <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ample) , full (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/full)
3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/licentious)
4: not literal or strict : loose (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loose) <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/broad-minded) ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism) bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism) ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

[Krash]

I agree. I grew up in Appalchia and there are way more poor and people living under $20k in the area than above it. All of the jobs left in the late 90's so now most poor people that did work in factories just work job to job because that is all their is. A majority of my family is in this category and they do not live like cockroaches. They have tiny rented houses and not much in them, but it is clean and they are proud of anything they do get. I just don't think some people understand the difference in the different groups of poor and they get lumped in together.

I also still remember in my time older family members not having indoor plumbing and I'm only 26. There are still areas like that around outside of cities which most people tend of focus on having a lot of the problems.


I should probably read the rest of the answers here but I didn't :eek ALL of my family currently still reside in Appalachia. My grandmother didn't have indoor plumbing until the late 1970's. They were coal miners, loggers and 1 bought a car and turned into "Flloyd's taxi" ran out of my grandmother's kitchen:) They never used welfare. Ever. My grandmother had 3 kids and 1 set of grandparents living in her home with 3rooms and no running water/bathroom. It worked. For them. I try to remember that whenever I feel a little envious....gee to her my 3bd. home would seem like a mansion!! Her children DID better themselves but it was by going into the military immediately after high school graduation and going to school on the GI bill. Amazingly they became teachers STILL living in what would be considered a very low income status in part due to the fact most chose to contine to live in Appalatia and they also don't live bad. Not extravigant but not bad:) Trailors can and do make nice homes when good, hard working people live in them.

[cheribear]

Oh and another thought just came to me....
If the government taxation is really the very best way to help the poor in America, why don't liberal rich movie stars send in more of their money to US taxes when April 15th rolls around? I mean, couldn't they choose to 'pay in' more than is required?

They seem to choose to donate their money to private charitable organizations though. hmmmmmn.....

Isn't it obvious why? The gov't coffers pay for EVERYTHING - including a lot of things people wouldn't want their extra money spent on (War?) - if you give to a charity, you give to a charity and know that your dollar is going to a certain cause.

It's nice to trust the government - but you'd be mad to pay more in taxes and think that it will automatically go to help the poor. I think the point of this conversation is taxing the poor and middle class LESS so that a larger amount of the overall tax burden can be shifted to those who can best afford to pay it - NOT so that the government can simply funnel more money to the poor.

Unless I'm misreading all of this.

[NellieRose]

It costs us maybe $10-15 a year and we got lots of meat out of it. I'm not say it's better but just saying there are things in life people can do besides just the things you believe are what they need to do to make them happy. Not all people are made happy by doing things you have to spend money on.

It's true that everything to be happy doesn't need money but it also has much to do with geography. A poor kid in NYC or any other urban area doesn't have many options to entertain themselves with little or no money whereas someone in a more rural area may have the ability to run/roam in the wilderness, play in streams or creeks, etc.

[cassie-in-texas]

Who do you think makes our youth want what they do? Do you think they're born greedy? Our own culture has made it an imperative for kids to want what they don't need. They're bombarded with it everywhere - corporate sponsorship in schools, constant commercials and product placement, classmates that try to make them feel inferior because they don't have those $150 sneakers. I'd hate to be a child in today's world with the economic status I grew up in - well below poverty level. I'd be a pariah.

I'll start off by saying that I've understood your points on most of your posts and agree most of the time. But I do have to debate this one. I do believe children are born quite un-civilized: greedy, self-centered, impatient. It is their parents, their teachers, their pastors that get them to look beyond their own wants, to consider others' needs before their own, to share (we've all gone thru the MINE! MINE stage!) They improve for a while and become nice little kids who play well with others, then they become teenagers and need a refresher course 'cause that "self-centered, my life is the worst in the world, my life is so unfair, I always have to do everything" monster raises its ugly head again. And again, the same parents and mentors need to re-establish the notions of self-discipline, a work ethic, appreciation and consideration of others. Delayed gratification does not come naturally to most people. But, I think that if kids see their parents working hard; see them helping out at the school, church, or soup kitchen; if they see their parents saving up for a big (elective) purchase until they can afford it - that's when they learn responsibility and social skills that make them a good "citizen of the world."

[tammy1999]

Just what is your definition of "liberal"????? And where did you come up with this theory....it is painting a picture with a mighty broad brush.

The site is painfully slow today...I actually think dial-up is faster!

ETA: Liberal means:
1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/openhanded) <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ample) , full (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/full)
3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/licentious)
4: not literal or strict : loose (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loose) <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/broad-minded) ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism) bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism) ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

I did a search on google about liberals giving to charity and thats what came up over and over. Liberals tend to not give as much to charity of conservatives do. My point I guess I was making was there are more wealthy liberals in this country than conservatives, but they don't give that much money to charity as conservatives do. Look at what congress gives. That was really sad to read.

Now I will go take a nap between posts and maybe they will give the squirrels a treat to run faster to make the site speed up.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

It costs us maybe $10-15 a year and we got lots of meat out of it. I'm not say it's better but just saying there are things in life people can do besides just the things you believe are what they need to do to make them happy. Not all people are made happy by doing things you have to spend money on.

Wow- it must be a lot less expensive in Maryland. In Ohio each adult resident pays $19, youth $15 just for fishing. Hunting is another $19.00 per person. Then there are permits specific to species that must be purchased- $24 ofr deer, another $24 for turkey...with youth paying $12 for deer, $12 for turkeys, etc.

That would be well over $100 per species for our family. Just sayin'.

[cassie-in-texas]

Isn't it obvious why? The gov't coffers pay for EVERYTHING - including a lot of things people wouldn't want their extra money spent on (War?) - if you give to a charity, you give to a charity and know that your dollar is going to a certain cause.

It's nice to trust the government - but you'd be mad to pay more in taxes and think that it will automatically go to help the poor. I think the point of this conversation is taxing the poor and middle class LESS so that a larger amount of the overall tax burden can be shifted to those who can best afford to pay it - NOT so that the government can simply funnel more money to the poor.

Unless I'm misreading all of this.

I believe that was the point that Daly was making. That celebs choose to donate to charity rather than taxes so that it goes where they want it to and because charities handle it better.

[kjbstevens]

I believe that was the point that Daly was making. That celebs choose to donate to charity rather than taxes so that it goes where they want it to and because charities handle it better.
But this goes to the point of why give it to the gov't if we all know they are just going to blow it and mishandle it. Even celebrities know that. :p

Yeah we live on private land and have hand me downs so besides the deer stamp it's all we have to purchase and we really don't have to have it because we are on private land but do it just in case he goes out with friends. Better safe to have it and fishing is on our own land so it's permit free. Even still there are free things to do everywhere. You might have be to creative but public playgrounds, parks, just taking kids out for a walk or spending time together is free. The point is money doesn't always buy happiness with kids. I don't know what happened to our society thinking we have to buy our kids affection. I think that is a good amount of the problem and why things have crashed and why people fall into the predators. I'm definately not perfect with it because my camera is probably worth more than all of the furniture combined in our house (even though it came from selling camera stuff I had), but things in our whole country have just gotten to into "stuff". Our poor don't need dances or movies. They need a stable job and food. People can make happiness from there and people can be entertained without movies, toys, or spending money if they have stability in life.

[Gina.Maria]

I'll start off by saying that I've understood your points on most of your posts and agree most of the time. But I do have to debate this one. I do believe children are born quite un-civilized: greedy, self-centered, impatient. It is their parents, their teachers, their pastors that get them to look beyond their own wants, to consider others' needs before their own, to share (we've all gone thru the MINE! MINE stage!) They improve for a while and become nice little kids who play well with others, then they become teenagers and need a refresher course 'cause that "self-centered, my life is the worst in the world, my life is so unfair, I always have to do everything" monster raises its ugly head again. And again, the same parents and mentors need to re-establish the notions of self-discipline, a work ethic, appreciation and consideration of others. Delayed gratification does not come naturally to most people. But, I think that if kids see their parents working hard; see them helping out at the school, church, or soup kitchen; if they see their parents saving up for a big (elective) purchase until they can afford it - that's when they learn responsibility and social skills that make them a good "citizen of the world."

You're right. I got a little heated and forgot what my own toddlers and teenager are/were like. But my point is that our children in the U.S. ask for the frivolous items they do because they have an entirely different frame of reference than children who grow up in Africa. Just as kjbstevens had a different experience than I did. A rural childhood is as different from an urban childhood as an American child is from an African child. They're worlds apart in experience.

[kjbstevens]

The site keeps randomly taking or spitting back my posts. It cut off the whole end of that last one. Let's try again.

Anyways it all comes down to teaching the people that are poor to be responsible with their money. If you waste it on entertainment or consumer goods you are taking away from your savings you could be putting up for a house or for your future if you become unemployed again. Spending to do something doesn't always equal happiness especially if you don't have the long term savings to be able to do it really. Instead saying they should be out dancing and spending on themselves to get happiness isn't teaching responsible money handling which is one of the ways the rich stay rich is savings and investment.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Yeah we live on private land and have hand me downs so besides the deer stamp it's all we have to purchase and we really don't have to have it because we are on private land but do it just in case he goes out with friends. Better safe to have it and fishing is on our own land so it's permit free. Even still there are free things to do everywhere. You might have be to creative but public playgrounds, parks, just taking kids out for a walk or spending time together is free. The point is money doesn't always buy happiness with kids. I don't know what happened to our society thinking we have to buy our kids affection. I think that is a good amount of the problem and why things have crashed and why people fall into the predators. I'm definately not perfect with it because my camera is probably worth more than all of the furniture combined in our house (even though it came from selling camera stuff I had), but things in our whole country have just gotten to into "stuff". Our poor don't need dances or movies. They need a stable job and food. People can make happiness from there and people can be entertained without movies, toys, or spending money if they have stability in life.

That's totally cool that you can do that without permits.
And, BTW- I DO agree with you about the money, happiness etc. WE do a LOT of hiking when the weather permits- all it takes is the few cents of gas to get us to the park, LOL. Board games is another fun thing when the weather is inclement.

[kjbstevens]

That's totally cool that you can do that without permits.
And, BTW- I DO agree with you about the money, happiness etc. WE do a LOT of hiking when the weather permits- all it takes is the few cents of gas to get us to the park, LOL. Board games is another fun thing when the weather is inclement.
See I think that is awesome. The kids will remember that time with all you probably more than another toy in the long run too. It was nice to have a nice response back to for my 5000th post. :)

[cassie-in-texas]

You're right. I got a little heated and forgot what my own toddlers and teenager are/were like. But my point is that our children in the U.S. ask for the frivolous items they do because they have an entirely different frame of reference than children who grow up in Africa. Just as kjbstevens had a different experience than I did. A rural childhood is as different from an urban childhood as an American child is from an African child. They're worlds apart in experience.


I'm glad you said that. After I posted I started thinking, "hmmm, maybe I'm the only one who's kids are like that?" But, I've looked around enough in the grocery store enough to know that's not the case!:lol

[cassie-in-texas]

See I think that is awesome. The kids will remember that time with all you probably more than another toy in the long run too. It was nice to have a nice response back to for my 5000th post. :)


Congrats on 5K! That's a big milestone!:clap

[vegaschristina]

Our poor don't need dances or movies. They need a stable job and food. People can make happiness from there and people can be entertained without movies, toys, or spending money if they have stability in life.

You're right. The poor don't need dances or movies. They are not necessary to exist. And happiness can be found without dances or movies. However, we're not speaking of existence. We're speaking about living. I don't want to exist, I want to live.

[lilysmama (Jodie McNally Designs)]

Was that a sincere question or sarcasm? Of course there are people here who struggle to make ends meet. We're a family that does that. But if what we're doing isn't working for us we can pursue other options of employment, right? Get a higher education, start a business, change jobs, rebudget... Why would I want to continue doing the same thing?

We are also a family that sometimes has to struggle to make ends meet, so I kinda see where you're coming from. But...

It isn't quite as easy as deciding to "get a higher education, start a business, change jobs, rebudget" out of the blue. Many of these people are part of a very terrible cycle of poverty and literally know no other way. Children learn to live by watching their parents/caregivers and the people around them. Some of these families are 3rd generation of living in poverty.

I have several students who are stuck in terrible situations because their parents can't *find* jobs, let alone switch jobs. Several of those parents would love to go back to school, but where should that money come from? Getting a job or going to school would mean they'd need adequate and affordable day care for babies - and that is certainly not something that is in high supply right now (at least not around here). I'm sorry for getting off topic here - I don't have an answer for the whole tax question - just thought I'd join in the convo here.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

See I think that is awesome. The kids will remember that time with all you probably more than another toy in the long run too. It was nice to have a nice response back to for my 5000th post. :)


Yay! :clap on the milestone!

[NellieRose]

I did a search on google about liberals giving to charity and thats what came up over and over. Liberals tend to not give as much to charity of conservatives do. My point I guess I was making was there are more wealthy liberals in this country than conservatives, but they don't give that much money to charity as conservatives do. Look at what congress gives. That was really sad to read.

Now I will go take a nap between posts and maybe they will give the squirrels a treat to run faster to make the site speed up.

With all due respect this amounts to nothing more than speculation.......

[lilysmama (Jodie McNally Designs)]

Anyways it all comes down to teaching the people that are poor to be responsible with their money. If you waste it on entertainment or consumer goods you are taking away from your savings you could be putting up for a house or for your future if you become unemployed again. Spending to do something doesn't always equal happiness especially if you don't have the long term savings to be able to do it really. Instead saying they should be out dancing and spending on themselves to get happiness isn't teaching responsible money handling which is one of the ways the rich stay rich is savings and investment.


So, if we shouldn't expect to spend money to help "these people", how should we teach them? And, like someone else said.....I spend a LOT of time working with people living in poverty (every single weekday from 8:15 am - 3:35 pm and then some) and my students don't think about buying expensive stuff quite as much as everyone would like to think they do. In fact, several of my students got to go to Wal-Mart the other day and pick out a pair of new tennis shoes for free and they were THRILLED!!! Some of them have never been to a movie theater and consider Hardee's to be "the nicest place to eat" they've ever heard of.

[cassie-in-texas]

So, if we shouldn't expect to spend money to help "these people", how should we teach them? And, like someone else said.....I spend a LOT of time working with people living in poverty (every single weekday from 8:15 am - 3:35 pm and then some) and my students don't think about buying expensive stuff quite as much as everyone would like to think they do. In fact, several of my students got to go to Wal-Mart the other day and pick out a pair of new tennis shoes for free and they were THRILLED!!! Some of them have never been to a movie theater and consider Hardee's to be "the nicest place to eat" they've ever heard of.


While I'm not for a lot of gov't programs, I would love to see more low-income, safe, childcare. For when people are attending job fairs, classes, or interviews. Heck, even for the first month or two of a job 'til the paychecks come in. I'd be ok with having to have something validated, to prove that you were actually job-seeking or working. No validation, no further privilege. (Sorry, but I don't want irresponsible people to drop off their kids to go partying, that shouldn't be on my dollar.) But to me, this falls under hand-up, not hand-out. No-one should have to choose between a job and the safety of a child.

[NellieRose]

...... Some of these families are 3rd generation of living in poverty.

I have several students who are stuck in terrible situations because their parents can't *find* jobs, let alone switch jobs. Several of those parents would love to go back to school, but where should that money come from? Getting a job or going to school would mean they'd need adequate and affordable day care for babies - and that is certainly not something that is in high supply right now (at least not around here). I'm sorry for getting off topic here - I don't have an answer for the whole tax question - just thought I'd join in the convo here.

Welcome aboard Jodie...now, put on your life vest, you might need it to stay afloat! LOL

I am with you 100% on your position and information you have offered....first off there are not jobs for every person in this country, let alone people who may not have even the most basic of educations let alone a set of vocational skills.

Another point people fail to recognize is that the education system fails those in poverty too. If you live in a "nice" town or section of town you get a better education, an aesthetically pleasant school environment, better books as well as a host of extra-curricular activities that are not afforded to those in lower income areas.....at that rate how could a certain portion of the population even begin to compete for positions in jobs or higher education if the opportunities presented themselves.

As for jobs, a look at the unemployment rate proves there are not even enough jobs to go around so one shouldn't wonder why anyone needs public assistance.

It's all too easy to sit and tell someone how they should love their lives because yours is going so much better or you are squeezing by....all the opportunity that is or as been afforded to you may have not been afforded to another.

[NellieRose]

and my students don't think about buying expensive stuff quite as much as everyone would like to think they do. In fact, several of my students got to go to Wal-Mart the other day and pick out a pair of new tennis shoes for free and they were THRILLED!!!

Or, next month people should go over to the Post Office in NYC whent hey release the letters to Santa....we take as many as we possibly can...these kids are asking for "blankets", "diapers" or a "stroller" for their baby siblings, "socks", etc. One time we even got a child writing for a "cot to sleep on" and cans of food so they could make their mom a nice Christmas dinner...talk about heartbreaking! Do they sometimes ask for a "Nintendo"?? Yes, but those letters are few and far between.....you want to know about poverty then get in the trenches and get your hands dirty before anyone goes spouting off about what people in poverty should or shouldn't be doing.

[kjbstevens]

You're right. The poor don't need dances or movies. They are not necessary to exist. And happiness can be found without dances or movies. However, we're not speaking of existence. We're speaking about living. I don't want to exist, I want to live.
Well that is great once you get out of poverty and debt but our society doesn't have it's poorest to even the existance standard. I believe they need to help way before my own selfish needs are met by the gov't and I'm in the lower of the income brackets and within our state definition of poor. I have a place to stay, power, plumbing, and food on the table that makes me grateful and not want more from the gov't until others have that same luxury. Poverty is not a lack of material good or entertainment, it is a lack of the things people need to live their everyday lives and I have no idea how it came to that point with the country to think true poverty means that. It just really makes me wonder about what politicians really think of the poor. Teach them money management and how bills, payments, and things work. Responsibility over spending money on dumb choices isn't a solution, but it will help many because not all really realize how credit, loans, and the true price of things. This should be there before calculus in schools.

I worked Santa's Elves in the coal fields and worked my way through college setting up free afterschool programs for kids. Some of them are heartbreaking.

[NellieRose]

Responsibility over spending money on dumb choices isn't a solution, but it will help many because not all really realize how credit, loans, and the true price of things. This should be there before calculus in schools.

I worked Santa's Elves in the coal fields and worked my way through college setting up free afterschool programs for kids. Some of them are heartbreaking.

It horrible isn't it??? :(

I wouldn't put much stock in the government teaching people to be fiscally responsible as they certainly, at least up until now, have not led by example...most recently citing the stimulus package earlier this year and encouraging people to get out and spend. :shrug

[lilysmama (Jodie McNally Designs)]

It just really makes me wonder about what politicians really think of the poor. Teach them money management and how bills, payments, and things work.

This should be there before calculus in schools.

I worked Santa's Elves in the coal fields and worked my way through college setting up free afterschool programs for kids. Some of them are heartbreaking.

Heartbreaking, indeed!!!

I don't think that a lot of politicians think much about the poor (the *really* poor) because they don't know them. Teaching money management and such *should definitely* be a req in school before calculus!!! :clap

[Babette]

They also live on the fathers salary, which wasn't very much. But, they also didn't have cable or the internet which helped save on money. Oh yea, the children aren't fat either. They have fun outside and are always helping out around the home.

Actually, this isn't true. The family owns COMMERCIAL use rental properties - yes, plural. In addition, they do have internet access - it's just restricted use. All this was disclosed in the show by them, so I don't think it's a secret. They are NO WHERE near poor - look at the house that they live in. Please don't misunderstand me, I don't begrudge them anything they have - but, please they are far from being poor.

[kjbstevens]

It horrible isn't it??? :(

I wouldn't put much stock in the government teaching people to be fiscally responsible as they certainly, at least up until now, have not led by example...most recently citing the stimulus package earlier this year and encouraging people to get out and spend. :shrug
True on that. :lol

[Babette]

You're right. The poor don't need dances or movies. They are not necessary to exist. And happiness can be found without dances or movies. However, we're not speaking of existence. We're speaking about living. I don't want to exist, I want to live.

I absolutely agree with you Christina. I think it's unfair that a large segment of the population, in THIS country, should just "exist."

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned, but I would venture to think that a many of these people are depressed - I know I would be if I was constantly beat down, worried how I was going to feed my kids, etc. Once you've slipped into a depression, it makes it even harder to pull yourself out. Everyone should be able to live a good life - not just exist.

[Babette]

We are also a family that sometimes has to struggle to make ends meet, so I kinda see where you're coming from. But...

It isn't quite as easy as deciding to "get a higher education, start a business, change jobs, rebudget" out of the blue. Many of these people are part of a very terrible cycle of poverty and literally know no other way. Children learn to live by watching their parents/caregivers and the people around them. Some of these families are 3rd generation of living in poverty.

I have several students who are stuck in terrible situations because their parents can't *find* jobs, let alone switch jobs. Several of those parents would love to go back to school, but where should that money come from? Getting a job or going to school would mean they'd need adequate and affordable day care for babies - and that is certainly not something that is in high supply right now (at least not around here). I'm sorry for getting off topic here - I don't have an answer for the whole tax question - just thought I'd join in the convo here.


I'm glad you jumped in - and you're spot on w/the day care issue.

[Babette]

No-one should have to choose between a job and the safety of a child.

And yet, this happens every day in America to SOOO many more people than you'd think. Both parents working minimum wage jobs just to try to make ends meet, often working extra hours if they can ... and the kids are on their own. Or single mothers who have no one to help them - what are they supposed to do? If they go on welfare so they can be with their kids and try to keep them safe, then they are accused of being lazy - if they go to work and can't afford child care then they are subject to being arrested for endangering the lives of their children. Doesn't seem right to me.

[lilysmama (Jodie McNally Designs)]

I would venture to think that many of these people are depressed - I know I would be if I was constantly beat down, worried how I was going to feed my kids, etc. Once you've slipped into a depression, it makes it even harder to pull yourself out.

Great point - and SO true!

[Inkspots]

Teach them money management and how bills, payments, and things work. Responsibility over spending money on dumb choices isn't a solution, but it will help many because not all really realize how credit, loans, and the true price of things. This should be there before calculus in schools.

But why? It's been proven to those running education that those who take calculus go to college and do better in life. Everyone should be taking calculus!:eyeroll (being totally sarcastic here.) I was talking about this with my mom before we left. She and several other of the teachers have been fighting to get consumer math back in the high-school to no avail. Heck, I would have loved to have taken consumer math and learned how to manage money and budget, but I was one of those in calculus instead.:shrug

[kjbstevens]

I absolutely agree with you Christina. I think it's unfair that a large segment of the population, in THIS country, should just "exist."

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned, but I would venture to think that a many of these people are depressed - I know I would be if I was constantly beat down, worried how I was going to feed my kids, etc. Once you've slipped into a depression, it makes it even harder to pull yourself out. Everyone should be able to live a good life - not just exist.
But should the needs of these people be met before those that don't even have the means to exist? All of the arguements I've seen for the income redistribution is so that people in the middle class can go out and spend it on the pleasures in life because they are tired of being held back because the rich can go and do it. I highly believe this is really what has been wrong with our country and giving more of that would just be adding to our current situation. That is the more of the same we need rid of just as much as other things that have happened during the Bush years. There is a huge difference in spending it on education that would actually teach people what they need to succeed in life rather than just succeeding in college. The whole system just lost focus and have left the people that actually need help down. One of the Santa's Elves kids I got on her Christmas list she put down all she wanted was for her daddy to be able to go back to work so they could turn the heat on. How do us sitting here with internet and our scrap habits even come close to needing to more than exist with that really and the children going without dinner tonight? This is a huge turnoff of the whole idea for me. The truely poor aren't getting anything from these lowest tax cuts because they don't have the income to tax to start with.

I'm not saying it would be nice to have more myself, but there are other things that need to come first that I don't think either of them are focusing on at all or solving it.

[daly]

So now all our poor are resentful and filled with envy? Because they what? want to experience more in life? I said the life described by so many (drawing from many different posts) of complete and utter sacrifice seemed bleak, not that the lives of all who are poor are bleak. You have a terrible habit of reading what you want into my posts and taking them entirely wrong. If you have a question about my intentions, maybe we should take this off-forum.

Who do you think makes our youth want what they do? Do you think they're born greedy? Our own culture has made it an imperative for kids to want what they don't need. They're bombarded with it everywhere - corporate sponsorship in schools, constant commercials and product placement, classmates that try to make them feel inferior because they don't have those $150 sneakers. I'd hate to be a child in today's world with the economic status I grew up in - well below poverty level. I'd be a pariah.

With all due respect you completely misunderstood what I meant.
You said, " Why is it okay for someone who's lucky enough, by accident of birth, to be born into wealth to have safety, security and satisfaction but another, who's born to poverty and unable to escape, should be happy to "survive?" That's just sad.

Well, my point is that.....yeah, it is possible, admirable to be happy (or at least pursue happiness) no matter what your socio-economic situation. It is sad that there are poor people....it is sadder if they they let themselves feel hopeless and victimized. (I didn't say they all do. I meant it would be sadder if they did...a minority do, not a majority I believe.)

I think it's dawning on me why my mom is pure gold....she never let us feel like we were in any way 'inferior' to anyone else who had more money.

The fact is there will be people who will be poor their entire lives even if Obama is elected President. They have dignity. They can find happiness right where they are (they may have to because poverty unfortunately doesn't look like it will be completely eliminated anytime soon.)

[daly]

Such an interesting statement considering it seems there is a good handful of angry and resentful people residing right here within our forums...they have shown themselves being both angry and resentful over others getting what they deem to be hand outs and are of the mindset that these people who get these so-called handouts haven't worked hard or hard enough. Perhaps it's those people who are worried about what everyone else is getting for "doing nothing" that should look inside themselves and be thankful for not only what they have in material things but for the opportunities they have had and the good fortune of the universe to not have been chosen to be one of the much less fortunate.

Have you ever worked with the poor? I have and I would be hard pressed to find one "poor" person that is angry and/or resentful...they are optimistically cautious that their situations will improve or that the next person that comes along to help them will actually help and not further exploit them....where are these angry and resentful people you speak of?

Yeah, I'm not one of those people who are angry about deserving people getting welfare. Really I'm not. I'm against the theory that government must do it all. I truly believe that private organizations and caring individuals like myself do so more effectively.

*Christian Childrens fund (http://www.christianchildrensfund.org/spnscreat/SpnsCreatEntry.aspx?c8l5h=SPNSMICRO&moken=ggsp0908)
*Habitat for Humanity
*Missions trips to build school and houses
*Red Cross
*tithe to church which supports many, many more worthy causes

Plus we supplement my grandmother's fixed income by giving her and increase of 1/3 out of our own pockets.

Before my other grandmother passed away, I stayed with her every other weekend.....while not directly giving her money...saved her money by her not having to pay for the over-night nurse to stay with her.

Does any of that count?:shrug

[Babette]

But should the needs of these people be met before those that don't even have the means to exist? All of the arguements I've seen for the income redistribution is so that people in the middle class can go out and spend it on the pleasures in life because they are tired of being held back because the rich can go and do it.

I can only speak for myself - I DO NOT see Obama's tax plan as doing this. I believe he will use the additional taxes from those who are wealthier to create programs which will help those who need them most. I don't think he's just going to cut checks. That would be counter productive and frankly, he's too intelligent for that. He's also said that he's going to go line by line to rid those programs that aren't working and put those monies where they will do good. In every speech that I've heard from him, education is one of his top priorities. How can this be accomplished without funds? I just find it horrendous that we can spend millions every month on this war, yet people (not you, just a general term) don't want social programs that will help our nation grow.

Everyone is calling his tax plans "welfare" or worse yet "socialism" when it clearly is neither. I truly believe that he cares deeply for this country, and more for it's people. He sees the injustices and has chosen to be a voice for those that have none. At the end of the day, the middle class is disappearing and the "upper" middle class is on it's way out as well. Soon, if this trend is allowed to continue I'm afraid we'll have only ultra rich and the poor.

This is why I posted the original question ... because I just don't understand what is wrong with "spreading the wealth" or which ever term is being used - it all amounts, in my mind, to helping our ENTIRE country. Personally, I'm pretty lucky now ... but, I've had my share of bad luck (losing job, lost my house, not knowing where I was going to live, etc.). And yes, luck did have a lot to do with my bad times and the current good situation I'm in. Sometimes working hard has no bearing on a situation. If there are no jobs to be found, then you just can't work - no matter how many times you knock on the door, if no one answers you can't walk thru.

[kjbstevens]

Yeah, I'm not one of those people who are angry about deserving people getting welfare. Really I'm not. I'm against the theory that government must do it all. I truly believe that private organizations and caring individuals like myself do so more effectively.
This is another reason the gov't doesn't take over these programs and do more is because they already think others do it. Above all Obama is still a politician and I think a lot of people lose sight of that thinking he is going to cure global poverty or something when with our current financial crisis and his big plans to do this and that costs a lot of money which our country doesn't have even though they spend it like they do. A lot of presidents and even back to rulers in even Rome Caesar ran on the platform of giving to the people from the rich. Thousands of years later it still hasn't gotten rid of the real poor. It's definately not an Obama original idea. This is why it's so vital for local agencies, churches, and charities to pick up the work so the money isn't squandered and making people do backflips to get the stuff like some do from the federal gov't for the people that it's hard to prove income and residence. Neither of these guys are going to be great saviours. Either tax plan gives the same real result. With McCains we are paying a little more for health care and have the same good prices. With Obama's plan we have a little extra money to put in our pockets to pay for the goods that will jump in price because of the added taxes on them and the bigger the company the more the increase. Neither is going to be great for the middle class.

[daly]

I made the statement in another post about how wealthy our poor, compared to the rest of the world, is with their cell phones, large tvs and nice cars, etc. I was also slammed for saying our poor is fat and was told that is all they can afford is only food that will make them fat..

I know, I know....I read that too and my jaw literally dropped. I could not even respond because I was speechless. (well, typeless...?:p)

To some people...EVERYTHING....is someone else's fault. If you are "poor", but fat that is because you can't possibly have an affordable healthy meal in America. (eyeroll)

Oh my gosh! My grandmother literally ate beans and cornbread everyday of her life! (they were poor, poor, poor)...except once a month she got the chicken neck and a gizard (if I remember correctly)from the Sunday dinner.

And before I get slammed for saying that....to clarify, I am not saying people should eat beans and cornbread everyday of their lives. I think maybe they have a few more healthy choices....?

[kjbstevens]

Make them october beans and throw some milk and butter in them and I'll join her. My grandmother grew up the same way. In a coal mining town with maybe 2 small bean meals a day and she had paper dolls she made for toys. She's still going pretty good. She actually just left from a weekend visit this morning. I think more than surving is having 3 full meals a day, stable job, and a place to call your own even if it's rented. I guess it's just a different growing up situation.

[hellosunshine]

[QUOTE]The fact is there will be people who will be poor their entire lives even if Obama is elected President. They have dignity. They can find happiness right where they are (they may have to because poverty unfortunately doesn't look like it will be completely eliminated anytime soon.QUOTE]

All of these posts about the inevitability of poverty and maintaining the status quo of extreme wealth and dire poverty speak to a lack of hope and dreams about this country. There is a kind of fatalism in all you say, and I don't share this view. I recently read a book called "Mountains Beyond Mountains" about how one doctor deals with combatting fatal diseases in very poor countries. More than the diseases, he has to deal with the attitude of those countries with money who think there is no hope in fighting these diseases in poor countries. Yet, this doctor has proven that huge strides can be made against these diseases if funding and medicines are made available.

Our society hasn't made a serious effort to combat and eliminate poverty. Rather, we turn a blind eye to poverty: we build our homes away from the poor areas; we separate our children out into "better" schools; we walk across the street to avoid the homeless; some roll their eyes at the single mother who dares buy a treat using food stamps, etc. We can eliminate poverty, if as a society we choose to do so. I have been poor, surrounded by poor people as many of you have described. Unlike many of you, I cannot say that I would have succeeded without help. Pell grants, government loans, and kind, supportive family and friends enabled me to achieve my first college degree, and then there was no stopping me.

This being said, eradicating poverty takes more than money. It takes time, perhaps generations--and mentors, encouragement, social programs, good jobs, education of many kinds, training, affordable housing, healthcare, counseling, and yes, it takes people with hope and a strong will to succeed--in short, it takes investment in our people. Yes, I am a dreamer, and most of my dreams have come true, so why not one more? :)

[kjbstevens]

This being said, eradicating poverty takes more than money. It takes time, perhaps generations--and mentors, encouragement, social programs, good jobs, education of many kinds, training, affordable housing, healthcare, counseling, and yes, it takes people with hope and a strong will to succeed--in short, it takes investment in our people. Yes, I am a dreamer, and most of my dreams have come true, so why not one more? :)
Well at least you have a plan in it that involves more than tax breaks and throwing money at it that it will end in the next 4 years. I think you are really spot on with it. Our gov't isn't always the solution. In fact they can be the other half of the problem besides just the people too.

[Babette]

[quote]All of these posts about the inevitability of poverty and maintaining the status quo of extreme wealth and dire poverty speak to a lack of hope and dreams about this country. There is a kind of fatalism in all you say, and I don't share this view. I recently read a book called "Mountains Beyond Mountains" about how one doctor deals with combatting fatal diseases in very poor countries. More than the diseases, he has to deal with the attitude of those countries with money who think there is no hope in fighting these diseases in poor countries. Yet, this doctor has proven that huge strides can be made against these diseases if funding and medicines are made available.

Our society hasn't made a serious effort to combat and eliminate poverty. Rather, we turn a blind eye to poverty: we build our homes away from the poor areas; we separate our children out into "better" schools; we walk across the street to avoid the homeless; some roll their eyes at the single mother who dares buy a treat using food stamps, etc. We can eliminate poverty, if as a society we choose to do so. I have been poor, surrounded by poor people as many of you have described. Unlike many of you, I cannot say that I would have succeeded without help. Pell grants, government loans, and kind, supportive family and friends enabled me to achieve my first college degree, and then there was no stopping me.

This being said, eradicating poverty takes more than money. It takes time, perhaps generations--and mentors, encouragement, social programs, good jobs, education of many kinds, training, affordable housing, healthcare, counseling, and yes, it takes people with hope and a strong will to succeed--in short, it takes investment in our people. Yes, I am a dreamer, and most of my dreams have come true, so why not one more? :)Bravo - so very well stated!!!

[Trina]

And if you wanted to get ahead in the teaching business, you either get more hours, another degree and go up on the pay scale. And I never said it was simple. Getting what you want in life is never simple.

Ummm...wrong! In so many ways.

I'm married to a teacher who has MAXED out on the pay scale in terms of years teaching (maxes out at 7 or 8 and he has taught 19...what about the other 11 or 12 years??) AND in terms of postgraduate coursework. What now? Nothing...

Couple that with an idiot in the name of Bill Sizemore CONTINUALLY writing legislation in Oregon against education, educators, etc., and the education fiasco in our state is atrocious. No one in their right mind would want to go into education. My husband does it because he has a passion for it...He totally doesn't do it for the money.

Think about this for a moment...His first year of teaching, we actually qualified for WELFARE based on his first-year teacher's salary!! How ridiculously sad is that? No, we didn't apply for Welfare, nor did we apply for food stamps...Instead, I went to work, 3 months pregnant, but we had to have the money.

Just a little example of how eskewed teachers' pay scales are...and no, additional course work and/or degrees will NOT change that.

[cheribear]

Everyone is calling his tax plans "welfare" or worse yet "socialism" when it clearly is neither. I truly believe that he cares deeply for this country, and more for it's people. He sees the injustices and has chosen to be a voice for those that have none. At the end of the day, the middle class is disappearing and the "upper" middle class is on it's way out as well. Soon, if this trend is allowed to continue I'm afraid we'll have only ultra rich and the poor.

This is why I posted the original question ... because I just don't understand what is wrong with "spreading the wealth" or which ever term is being used - it all amounts, in my mind, to helping our ENTIRE country.I keep reading through responses here and I have to ask - is 'spreading the wealth':

A- to heavily tax the wealthy and pour that money into welfare and social programs etc. to benefit the poor ie/ 'sharing the wealth' in a Robin Hood type of way.

or

B - To heavily tax the wealthy to shift the tax burden for everything towards those who can best afford to shoulder it, and take some of the pressure off of those who cannot afford it.

I keep thinking you're talking about B - which is a completely different thing than A. To me, if you're saying - those who are very wealthy have benefited MOST from the wealth in your country, the economy, the work of others, etc. and therefore, they put more back in. That is fair (to me). So the poor aren't benefiting from the good fortune (or hard work) of the rich, but that the general good of everyone is largely paid for by those who clearly benefit most - and we accept the idea that the rich couldn't BE rich if it wasn't for the hard work of the others.

There are people who say - oh, look - its the poor and the welfare/social program recipients who are benefiting here, I don't think its right that all this money goes to them! Make them pay for themselves! I don't know how they can be blind to the fact that the rich are, well - rich. :lol: They're clearly benefiting the most, everything is working in their favor - but people are quick to defend those people's entitlement to their huge share of the pie without any expectation that they pay more to support the system that allows them such wealth and success.

Anyway - I don't agree with taxing the rich just to funnel that money to the poor through the government - but I do agree with the rich shouldering a much bigger portion of the overall tax burden because they are clearly the ones benefiting most from society.

[Babette]

I keep reading through responses here and I have to ask - is 'spreading the wealth':

A- to heavily tax the wealthy and pour that money into welfare and social programs etc. to benefit the poor ie/ 'sharing the wealth' in a Robin Hood type of way.

or

B - To heavily tax the wealthy to shift the tax burden for everything towards those who can best afford to shoulder it, and take some of the pressure off of those who cannot afford it.

I keep thinking you're talking about B - which is a completely different thing than A. To me, if you're saying - those who are very wealthy have benefited MOST from the wealth in your country, the economy, the work of others, etc. and therefore, they put more back in. That is fair (to me). So the poor aren't benefiting from the good fortune (or hard work) of the rich, but that the general good of everyone is largely paid for by those who clearly benefit most - and we accept the idea that the rich couldn't BE rich if it wasn't for the hard work of the others.

There are people who say - oh, look - its the poor and the welfare/social program recipients who are benefiting here, I don't think its right that all this money goes to them! Make them pay for themselves! I don't know how they can be blind to the fact that the rich are, well - rich. :lol: They're clearly benefiting the most, everything is working in their favor - but people are quick to defend those people's entitlement to their huge share of the pie without any expectation that they pay more to support the system that allows them such wealth and success.

Anyway - I don't agree with taxing the rich just to funnel that money to the poor through the government - but I do agree with the rich shouldering a much bigger portion of the overall tax burden because they are clearly the ones benefiting most from society.


Yes, it's "B" that's I'm talking about. *smiles* OH, and you stated that brilliantly!

[kjbstevens]

Anyway - I don't agree with taxing the rich just to funnel that money to the poor through the government - but I do agree with the rich shouldering a much bigger portion of the overall tax burden because they are clearly the ones benefiting most from society.

Yeah this is what most people believe in just fine except Republicans are more on cutting the amount we raise to start with from everyone instead of taking it more extra from the rich. Instead they are cutting out tax for the lower classes through the middle class so that the people that benefit from the gov't stuff pays nothing into them. It's not an even or even close fair percentage once the cuts are added for Obama's plan. Even though it's not going to pass he called for rebates in his plans to give extra money to those that doesn't have a tax liability but even his own party didn't agree. His plans aren't fair plans. They are lopsided. And no the money doesn't all go to welfare. Actually only probably a smaller amount of it does. Behind defense, payrolls, gov't benefits, military, national parks, the list goes on then you have the welfare budget because states mostly handle it now. It's not really something all believe the federal gov't should have a hand in because they so badly mismanage funds and programs giving them more chance at failing. Most welfare is left to states here and those are usually the programs that actually help provide structured relief like WIC. Even if it's in all states they are different by state and give people food that kids and pregnant women should actually be eating. The structure in it helps it help people instead of giving just money towards stuff. That type of aid is what is needed that will teach responsibilty in the programs and help people with an actual nutritional need instead of a want like they can use food stamps for like cookies, chips, processed foods, etc. I don't have much faith in our federal gov't wouldn't set something responsible like that or even close. A lot of the issues here in this country is Republicans want states to do the welfare and Democrats think the president should be in charge of it with the federal gov't. If we didn't have huge rises in the federal taxes that could be paid to states that do a better job of specializing regional programs which I think would be so, so much better. Instead we're going to have programs where people in New York and people in here a small rural area in the mountains would end up with paying the same and having the same benefits at income levels. Which is going to get help and which isn't with that? None of this is fair. Cities are going to pay the higher taxes because they make more, while country people can live off a fraction comfortably but will have to come up with the income to match city people and getting the same benefits for the same amount is going to hurt people in the city because you get less for the same price as what they can give more of in a rural area. A national system isn't really the best for everyone in a really mixed country like we have. It is not going to end up fair. If you want fairness in the taxing go to Fair Tax or a flat tax system. Our current system isn't set up to be fair.

[cassie-in-texas]

I have to admire the passion and though that everyone has posted into their answers on both sides of the issue. The biggest problem I see is that until Inauguration Day, these are ALL empty promises-from both candidates. No matter how the new President wants to address this problem, he still has all of Congress to deal with. My cynical mind can just see a big tax bill being proposed to help the poor with 200 billion dollars worth of corporate pork attached to it. The big dogs are not going to go quietly. Most of the things these candidates are promising have been promised over and over again by both parties. Promises and plans are one thing, implementation is totally another. So I tend to look at all specific promises with enormous skepticism. Seems every President stands up halfway thru his term and explains why none of his campaign promises has been accomplished, and, of course, why it's not his fault. I'm referring to both parties here. It will be interesting to see, whoever gets elected, whether they can actually accomplish anything. I honestly don't see Congress raising taxes on the wealthy. They are the wealthy. They give themselves pay raises without being willing to raise minimum wage. Self-sacrifice is not in their vocabulary.

[daly]

Yeah this is what most people believe in just fine except Republicans are more on cutting the amount we raise to start with from everyone instead of taking it more extra from the rich. Instead they are cutting out tax for the lower classes through the middle class so that the people that benefit from the gov't stuff pays nothing into them. It's not an even or even close fair percentage once the cuts are added for Obama's plan. Even though it's not going to pass he called for rebates in his plans to give extra money to those that doesn't have a tax liability but even his own party didn't agree. His plans aren't fair plans. They are lopsided. And no the money doesn't all go to welfare. Actually only probably a smaller amount of it does. Behind defense, payrolls, gov't benefits, military, national parks, the list goes on then you have the welfare budget because states mostly handle it now. It's not really something all believe the federal gov't should have a hand in because they so badly mismanage funds and programs giving them more chance at failing. Most welfare is left to states here and those are usually the programs that actually help provide structured relief like WIC. Even if it's in all states they are different by state and give people food that kids and pregnant women should actually be eating. The structure in it helps it help people instead of giving just money towards stuff. That type of aid is what is needed that will teach responsibilty in the programs and help people with an actual nutritional need instead of a want like they can use food stamps for like cookies, chips, processed foods, etc. I don't have much faith in our federal gov't wouldn't set something responsible like that or even close. A lot of the issues here in this country is Republicans want states to do the welfare and Democrats think the president should be in charge of it with the federal gov't. If we didn't have huge rises in the federal taxes that could be paid to states that do a better job of specializing regional programs which I think would be so, so much better. Instead we're going to have programs where people in New York and people in here a small rural area in the mountains would end up with paying the same and having the same benefits at income levels. Which is going to get help and which isn't with that? None of this is fair. Cities are going to pay the higher taxes because they make more, while country people can live off a fraction comfortably but will have to come up with the income to match city people and getting the same benefits for the same amount is going to hurt people in the city because you get less for the same price as what they can give more of in a rural area. A national system isn't really the best for everyone in a really mixed country like we have. It is not going to end up fair. If you want fairness in the taxing go to Fair Tax or a flat tax system. Our current system isn't set up to be fair.

I think you make really good points here. :clapI need to look into the Fair Tax idea.....I keep hearing about it, but I don't know much about it...how it differs from flat tax.

[kjbstevens]

It's already been well stated around that Congress probably isnt going to pass either tax as is without their modifications so I also agree this is a lot of empty promises with you Cassie and there will be junk added to anything. People are so convinced that picking a certain way is going to guarentee them more money and that we're going to be so much off better that I just can't believe it. Not really you all here but go out and listen to people in public that just hear bits and pieces. I heard a woman in Walmart the other day talking about how she's voting for Obama because she is turning 65 next month and doesn't feel like paying taxes anymore. This woman was obviously pretty well off too. I've seen it on both sides especially the pro McCain people that still believe Obama is a radical leftist, but that one in particular made me really scratch my head that she actually believes if he is in office she doesn't have to pay taxes anymore because she makes less than $250. If anyone really thinks either way much is going to change if anything it's sort of silly. Taxes aren't going to be cut as long as they need all of this money to bail out things. Raising taxes on anyone would just set up further into a depression even if people believe they should be out living it up instead of the rich that will just find ways to hide their money increasing corruption so it's not taxed. We all need a good long lecture on the lives of some of our grandparents from the depression if we think money and having things buys happiness. McCain can't cut everyone until we get some debt off and probably won't get all of the business ones cut anyways. I agree that these great changes aren't going to happen anytime soon. It's a horrible time for it until the country gets back on track financially and it's going to take some time and a change in mindset that we don't need this material stuff or debt and instead need to save to take care of ourselves. Personal responsibility will cure more poverty and lack of funds in the middle class as much as gov't programs. There are legimate poor but people like us need to save instead of spend on material possessions and entertainment and we wouldn't need the gov't to step into our lives like they are trying to expand their power over. I just think it basically comes down to work on taking care of yourself instead of waiting for the gov't to do it for us because we all see how well over the past it's worked ever. There has always been poor and I see no end to there not being poor soon. But until all people are fed and have clothes and a bed to sleep on I'm happy waiting my turn because they deserve the tax money way more than we need another stimulus check to encourage us to go out and buy material goods and waste more tax money doing it. It's a horrible, horrible lesson to teach Americans. If they have a budget surplus of course give out the checks but when the gov't doesn't have the money and are in debt why give out more lessons to spend what you don't have? Okay I'm done and just a little angry with the feds at the moment. LOL

[tammy1999]

With all due respect this amounts to nothing more than speculation.......

Read the articles that show what is reported on income tax forms from congress people. It's not speculation. If it is, there wouldn't be so much reported on it.

[tammy1999]

Actually, this isn't true. The family owns COMMERCIAL use rental properties - yes, plural. In addition, they do have internet access - it's just restricted use. All this was disclosed in the show by them, so I don't think it's a secret. They are NO WHERE near poor - look at the house that they live in. Please don't misunderstand me, I don't begrudge them anything they have - but, please they are far from being poor.

When they were first on Discovery channel a few years ago, they were living in a small ranch home and they did not have tv or internet. Now, that they have made money on speaking engagements and other venturs in the past couple of years, they have the money to do other things. The house they live in right now, they built virtually themselves, with money they saved.

You should go back and look up the shows from the very beginning before they moved into where they are now. I think the first one is called Raising 16 children which came out in 2006. All the shows now are their new series. Believe me, they didn't have what they have now.

[tammy1999]

Ummm...wrong! In so many ways.

I'm married to a teacher who has MAXED out on the pay scale in terms of years teaching (maxes out at 7 or 8 and he has taught 19...what about the other 11 or 12 years??) AND in terms of postgraduate coursework. What now? Nothing...

Couple that with an idiot in the name of Bill Sizemore CONTINUALLY writing legislation in Oregon against education, educators, etc., and the education fiasco in our state is atrocious. No one in their right mind would want to go into education. My husband does it because he has a passion for it...He totally doesn't do it for the money.

Think about this for a moment...His first year of teaching, we actually qualified for WELFARE based on his first-year teacher's salary!! How ridiculously sad is that? No, we didn't apply for Welfare, nor did we apply for food stamps...Instead, I went to work, 3 months pregnant, but we had to have the money.

Just a little example of how eskewed teachers' pay scales are...and no, additional course work and/or degrees will NOT change that.

See, that just shows how different states run. In Missouri and Arkansas, the last I heard, you go up on the pay scale the more hours you receive in your education. Yes, you can eventually max out with hours. And yes, I know teachers salaries are low and I don't like it either. I use to be there. But, like I have said in a past post, those salaries, along with police, fireman, military, etc. is based on government money. I guess thats why I left teaching because I found something that paid better.

[tammy1999]

I have to admire the passion and though that everyone has posted into their answers on both sides of the issue. The biggest problem I see is that until Inauguration Day, these are ALL empty promises-from both candidates. No matter how the new President wants to address this problem, he still has all of Congress to deal with. My cynical mind can just see a big tax bill being proposed to help the poor with 200 billion dollars worth of corporate pork attached to it. The big dogs are not going to go quietly. Most of the things these candidates are promising have been promised over and over again by both parties. Promises and plans are one thing, implementation is totally another. So I tend to look at all specific promises with enormous skepticism. Seems every President stands up halfway thru his term and explains why none of his campaign promises has been accomplished, and, of course, why it's not his fault. I'm referring to both parties here. It will be interesting to see, whoever gets elected, whether they can actually accomplish anything. I honestly don't see Congress raising taxes on the wealthy. They are the wealthy. They give themselves pay raises without being willing to raise minimum wage. Self-sacrifice is not in their vocabulary.

You bring up a good point about all the promises being made and nothing ever comes of it. I loved the 20/20 series that was on this past Friday and it showed video clips starting with Carter wanting to be oil independent here in America. Every President has said that in one of his speeches. So thats been going on over 30 years and nothing has ever been done yet.

[NellieRose]

Read the articles that show what is reported on income tax forms from congress people. It's not speculation. If it is, there wouldn't be so much reported on it.

Our income tax returns do not classify us as "liberal" or "conservative"...and, if they did not all charitable contributions, no matter the size, are listed on income tax returns.

So again, it is sheer speculation as to whether liberals or conservatives donate more money.

[Gina.Maria]

I have to take exception with the donation accusations because in many cases, the donation of time is harder to do and more valuable. Money isn't everything.

[NellieRose]

I have to take exception with the donation accusations because in many cases, the donation of time is harder to do and more valuable. Money isn't everything.

:clap

Well of course there's that too but it seems the only issue many people here seem concerned with is "money" & proving who does or doesn't do what so I wasn't about to waste my keystrokes on that side of the issue. ;)

[cheribear]

Yeah this is what most people believe in just fine except Republicans are more on cutting the amount we raise to start with from everyone instead of taking it more extra from the rich. Instead they are cutting out tax for the lower classes through the middle class so that the people that benefit from the gov't stuff pays nothing into them. It's not an even or even close fair percentage once the cuts are added for Obama's plan. Even though it's not going to pass he called for rebates in his plans to give extra money to those that doesn't have a tax liability but even his own party didn't agree. His plans aren't fair plans. They are lopsided.....It is not going to end up fair. If you want fairness in the taxing go to Fair Tax or a flat tax system. Our current system isn't set up to be fair.

I think this is what I am getting at *specifically* - I don't see 'fair' as an equal percentage by every person, according to their income -- not by a long shot. I expect that the richer people in a country should be paying a much greater percentage of their earnings into taxes than the poor, and I think that is what is really FAIR, because while other people like to look at even numbers and call them fair - they're just even. Not fair. While its all fine and good to look at social programs and point out how the poor are the ones 'benefiting' from the government - that is nothing compared to how much the rich are 'benefiting' from everything else the government has poured money into to make the country what it is. They benefit the most, its quite obvious if you look at what they are earning - why is it 'unfair' to expect those who benefit the most to pay more of a percentage of what they earn?

We sit around and point at the poor and how they 'waste' their money and waste their time and don't work hard enough - and applaud the rich when we see them spending and behaving frivolously. We love to see that kind of wealth and never stop to think where it comes from or how that kind of lifestyle is supported. So, those are the perks of being rich - everyone sees it as 'their' money, they can do with it what they want. But when you see the poor making wasteful choices, you see it as 'our' money, and it brings up questions about their personal responsibility, etc.

I just have this strange ability to trace the money going out of MY pocket to fund the super rich, just as easily as I can trace it going to the poor. Everything I spend to feed my family, entertain ourselves - every hour my husband works in his life and every dollar he makes will be multiplied several times in the amount of income he is generating to go into his employer's pocket, everything just goes along the line and eventually makes it to the top of chain of wealth -the businesses and their stock holders and CEO's and whatnot. Little bits of every dollar, from millions and millions of people just like me - build their fortunes daily.

And so, I don't like to see it wasted or flaunted or abused by either - but I have no taste for allowing the privileged people to keep the same percentage of 'their' money to do with what they wish, but complaining about for letting the poor people keep a bigger percentage of theirs saying that's unfair because they 'benefit most' - I just can't agree. So they're buying cookies with their WIC and that's wasteful, but we don't bat an eye at waste by the rich or stop for a second to think how they get that money they're wasting.

[scrapper_gal]

While I understand the value of a flat tax and fair tax and think they are probably good ideas, the reality of it is that it is NEVER going to happen. Congress won't let it. The current income tax system is used as a vehicle for the gov't to either encourage or discourage certain types of behavior. To remove the possibility of deductions and tax credits will take the club (or carrot) out of the hands of congress and I just don't believe they are going to give that up.

[tammy1999]

While I understand the value of a flat tax and fair tax and think they are probably good ideas, the reality of it is that it is NEVER going to happen. Congress won't let it. The current income tax system is used as a vehicle for the gov't to either encourage or discourage certain types of behavior. To remove the possibility of deductions and tax credits will take the club (or carrot) out of the hands of congress and I just don't believe they are going to give that up.

I've always believed that point too. But I can still hope that someday we might have a tax system that is not controlled by congress.

[kjbstevens]

We sit around and point at the poor and how they 'waste' their money and waste their time and don't work hard enough - and applaud the rich when we see them spending and behaving frivolously. We love to see that kind of wealth and never stop to think where it comes from or how that kind of lifestyle is supported. So, those are the perks of being rich - everyone sees it as 'their' money, they can do with it what they want. But when you see the poor making wasteful choices, you see it as 'our' money, and it brings up questions about their personal responsibility, etc.

Here is the thing though. I am one of these "poor" by their standards. They gov't keeps throwing money at us telling us to keep spending and don't worry you won't have to pay taxes so you can spend some more. I know what you mean and agree the rich should pay more, but that doesn't mean the poor should pay nothing at all or should actually get rebates on top of it. Rewarding not having a tax liability while others are paying out to fund that is not fair.

You can't get cookies with WIC. That's why I think it's good. It's only nutritious stuff. It's basically milk, cereal, eggs, peanut butter, formula. Things that actually are needs instead of just amounts of buy whatever you want like here the cards can buy lottery tickets and cigarettes. Should our tax dollars really be going to them? There is a flaw in our system and believe that giving freedom in this choices is the way to go but unless you help guide choices and limit them to the best it doesn't always teach good things. Most people that are called anti-poor or anti-welfare here just want limits on what things can be used for and helping people make better choices to help better themselves not it gone. The junk foods and bad things they can currently buy doesn't encourage them to have better health, it adds to more health care costs and so many other things. It's okay for the gov't to help people responsibily, but they also have to help them help themselves with better healthy lifestyles from it.

[kjbstevens]

While I understand the value of a flat tax and fair tax and think they are probably good ideas, the reality of it is that it is NEVER going to happen. Congress won't let it. The current income tax system is used as a vehicle for the gov't to either encourage or discourage certain types of behavior. To remove the possibility of deductions and tax credits will take the club (or carrot) out of the hands of congress and I just don't believe they are going to give that up.
I agree with this. Without being able to cater to the poor or the businesses canidates lose a lot of the ground.

[strangejen]

Without being able to cater to the poor or the businesses canidates lose a lot of the ground.

. . . which is why the tax is actually in America's best interest, because then the politicians would have to actually talk about the ISSUES rather than perpetuating class warfare and the us-versus-them mentality!!!

[kjbstevens]

. . . which is why the tax is actually in America's best interest, because then the politicians would have to actually talk about the ISSUES rather than perpetuating class warfare and the us-versus-them mentality!!!
I think the Earth would stop turning since it's only been going on since what... people started societies? Is it really going to stop in our lifetime. Yeah. Right. LOL Funny stuff. Love it Jen.

[cheribear]

But the poor people have to work, in order to qualify to pay taxes, right? So if they're working, and not making enough to get by with the basics, and the gov't has to provide them with WIC or welfare anyway - what is the point?

My issue is mostly with people finding extra taxation at the higher levels unfair - what happens with welfare and assistance programs is a whole other kettle of fish. As I said in an earlier post - I don't believe in taxing the rich more so the government can funnel more money to the poor. I just believe in making the rich responsible for a larger percentage of the taxes, because they are clearly seeing a far greater percentage of the benefits of a prosperous society. Whether those tax dollars end up in welfare and social benefit programs for the poor = different issue.

[strangejen]

I think the Earth would stop turning since it's only been going on since what... people started societies? Is it really going to stop in our lifetime. Yeah. Right. LOL Funny stuff. Love it Jen.

*shrugs* we all need something to believe in and hope for. LOL

[kjbstevens]

Well many are wanting it to turn into a funneling to the poor by going into health care and things like that. Not Obama specifically but there a movement in wanting money to come from somewhere to start making sure everyone is covered and that people have more than just what they need to survive out of taxes. It's not as much the higher percentage anymore. I totally get what you are meaning. I agree that a higher percentage should be in the rich, it is not them alone in this country. We are all Americans and whether is sucks, is fair, or whatever it goes along with the territory. Taxes should be on the things you buy instead of the money you make to start with. I don't get how punishing the people that work because the main thing to do to start with. My main problems lies with that because this is income tax we are talking about not tax on things you buy. We're taking away the money people have earned without them having a true say in it just because they earn. Am I the only one that really sees that as a hugely strange practice since we want people to earn I thought? If people could have the choice on what they spend it would much more fair to me.

[strangejen]

I personally would love to see NONE of my tax money going toward a war that I consider unjust, but whatcha gonna do. ;)

[kjbstevens]

I personally would love to see NONE of my tax money going toward a war that I consider unjust, but whatcha gonna do. ;)
Well what's the Swiss immigration policy? :lol
Yeah see you could grow your own food and be stubborn and buy used stuff if we'd voted for Huckabee instead and done everything you could to get around funding it.

[strangejen]

Well what's the Swiss immigration policy?

I'm too lazy to move. I have WAAAAAY to many books to pack up again. I may have to stay in my current house forever just because of this.

(So what do I do yesterday? I go with Jake to his school's book fair and buy 15 more! I have problems.)

[cassie-in-texas]

I'm all for closing loopholes and making sure everyone pays a reasonable amount of tax. However of all the income tax collected, the top 5% of income earners pay a whopping 60% of all that money. In 2006, the cutoff for top 5% was $153,000. If you look at the top 50% (32K and above) of earners, they are covering 97% of all the income tax in this country!

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200512070900.asp

The "better off" are already shouldering a larger percentage of our societal costs (and I do believe that is the right thing to do.) But I also think that 5% of the population covering the cost of 60% of our tax budget is plenty steep. They are paying for the added benefits they receive from this society. If the spending, particularly wasteful spending isn't brought under control, more and more people (who can) will simply move their money off-shore. Why would anyone be willing to funnel more money into a govt that's subsidizes wooden arrows (part of the 700B bailout) or builds roads to nowhere?

[strangejen]

But I also think that 5% of the population covering the cost of 60% of our tax budget is plenty steep.

but don't they also CONTROL a huge percentage of the nation's money? Who knows those statistics? (I can't ever keep up.)

[cassie-in-texas]

but don't they also CONTROL a huge percentage of the nation's money? Who knows those statistics? (I can't ever keep up.)

Well, yeah, that's why they're rich :lol
But, the sites I posted took their info from the IRS, best info I have available.

[cheribear]

Well many are wanting it to turn into a funneling to the poor by going into health care and things like that. Not Obama specifically but there a movement in wanting money to come from somewhere to start making sure everyone is covered and that people have more than just what they need to survive out of taxes. It's not as much the higher percentage anymore. I totally get what you are meaning. I agree that a higher percentage should be in the rich, it is not them alone in this country. We are all Americans and whether is sucks, is fair, or whatever it goes along with the territory. Taxes should be on the things you buy instead of the money you make to start with. I don't get how punishing the people that work because the main thing to do to start with. My main problems lies with that because this is income tax we are talking about not tax on things you buy. We're taking away the money people have earned without them having a true say in it just because they earn. Am I the only one that really sees that as a hugely strange practice since we want people to earn I thought? If people could have the choice on what they spend it would much more fair to me.

I agree with you that it seems to make more sense to tax what you spend rather than what you earn - we have a lot of both here especially when you take into account our provincial tax and GST (goods and services tax = federal) - its close to 13-14 percent.

But I do agree with the point others have brought up - that the poor and middle class are spending a lot more of their income than the rich. No matter how much the rich spend - they are rich because they have enough that they don't have to spend the same portion of their income as the poor and middle class. For that reason, it makes sense to tax what they make rather than what they spend.

[kjbstevens]

but don't they also CONTROL a huge percentage of the nation's money? Who knows those statistics? (I can't ever keep up.)
Well if it's their own money though.... at some point it gets into personal property. At a certain point it goes beyond duty to gov't seizure of assets. We haven't gotten to that point yet of course, but the rich can always sent their money, jobs, and stuff elsewhere. There are other markets gaining momentum and stable in the world. There are far more countries than just us. Setting businesses up to be potentially alienated from our markets won't help. It's all just a hard call on where the line is. We really don't have much and have zero tax liability though so whatever on my part because I doubt we'll pay either way. I just don't believe taking away their earned stuff is a good practice because of the extra power involved in it. It's scary power.

[strangejen]

Well, yeah, that's why they're rich :lol

well I was just trying to make the point that THAT'S why they pay so much of the taxes, 'cause they have all the freaking money.

My husband makes about 40% more than I do, and we do our home budget so that he's paying that much more of our shared bills. It wouldn't be fair for us to be making such crazy different amounts of money but still expect each other to put in the same dollar for dollar amount. (Especially since I can't work more or a higher-paying/high-stress job because i have to care for our child.) But PERCENTAGE wise, we're basically paying the same percentage, and we work together when there's unexpected issues that come up.

Does that example make sense?

[kjbstevens]

Yeah it makes sense except for bring up my no tax paying butt again. I have no income. I take care of the kids. I pay nothing in. Should I really be getting benefits or someone that goes out and works and pays taxes? We'll pretend my husband doesn't have income. Who should get the help first? People that pay in nothing and contribute nothing or people that try to contribute but just can't make it? Maybe this is another difference between us all with it.

[strangejen]

well the whole women working their butts off their entire lives to raise a family and make a home, meanwhile a man can work making money all that time and leave her with NOTHING if he divorces her thing . . . well that's a whole other thread. I personally think men need to be more accountable for the women who make the way they live their lives possible. :) You ARE working, it's just unpaid work with no taxes going into the system.

my no tax paying butt

ok, that's a funny phrase. :)

[strangejen]

also . . . is your getting help and your kids not starving based on fairness tax-wise, or is it based on the fact that programs like WIC are so we don't have children who have nothing to eat? At some point, we have to realize that sometimes circumstances put even the most capable people in hard situations, and I would rather those people have food and safe shelter, regardless of how much they have paid into the tax system.

[kjbstevens]

well the whole women working their butts off their entire lives to raise a family and make a home, meanwhile a man can work making money all that time and leave her with NOTHING if he divorces her thing . . . well that's a whole other thread. I personally think men need to be more accountable for the women who make the way they live their lives possible. :) You ARE working, it's just unpaid work with no taxes going into the system.
That is state by state. Here in Maryland you get half of all money, items, land, everything acquired during the money no matter who paid for it. They are a little better than most states with it.

Still though I make the choice to stay home. I'm college educated and plenty able to contribute. I just chose not too. Should people like that really get be on the gov't handout or onto the insurance list? It's really shaky ground to me because it's not like I'm really even trying or plan to contribute from the help or pay into taxes.

[cheribear]

Yeah it makes sense except for bring up my no tax paying butt again. I have no income. I take care of the kids. I pay nothing in. Should I really be getting benefits or someone that goes out and works and pays taxes? We'll pretend my husband doesn't have income. Who should get the help first? People that pay in nothing and contribute nothing or people that try to contribute but just can't make it? Maybe this is another difference between us all with it.

I see help based on need. If you don't need it, you don't get it. I don't worry for a second whether that person pays taxes or not.

While a certain portion of taxes do go to programs to support people who can't/don't pay taxes - a lot more taxes (in our country, anyway) go to infrastructure, supporting businesses, trade, the economy etc. creating an environment where those who do get rich are better able to do so. And they'll be the first to lobby/complain if something is turning out so that they do have to pay more, and to ask for gov't support - and they're most likely to get the policies they want because they have the money. I'm certain it works that way in a lot of countries, so don't fool yourself thinking that a lot of tax money isn't spent on THEIR interests as well. Its one thing to bail out a family in need, its another to bail out an industry or a corporation.

[hellosunshine]

My understanding is that no one can live indefinitely off the U.S. taxpayer. Programs for your children end at age 18. I don't equate access to healthcare for everyone to a lifetime of welfare or government assistance.

I don't have a problem sharing my wealth to make your life and your children's better until you have better circumstances. However, if you have a problem with receiving it, just say no.

[strangejen]

Should people like that really get be on the gov't handout or insurance list?

if it came down to you and your kids having nowhere to go and no food to eat, then yes! I think we should take care of people who are in these situations until they can recover.

and yay for those laws in Maryland! :)

[strangejen]

I see help based on need. If you don't need it, you don't get it. I don't worry for a second whether that person pays taxes or not.

thank you! this is what I was trying to say. :)

[kjbstevens]

See I think there is a difference though. I don't care if people legimately need it pay taxes or not on it but there is a lot of people that opt out of taxes, have the money to live, and still are able to get help above those with no abillity because of waiting lines. There are people in the city that make $50k that need more help than people in the country making $20k. They base so much on income that the true people that get help might not get it. We're eligible for all the programs income wise but I know there are people that need it far more than us even if both parents work that can't even get qualified. That is what is sad. So much is based on amount of salary that it hurts people that need help. I also think that my choice not to contribute does have some part of the decision. It makes our income lower but we have much less expense of people with higher income that might work. Things are just flawed is I think what I'm meaning.

[strangejen]

So much is based on amount of salary that it hurts people that need help . . . we have much less expense of people with higher income that might work. Things are just flawed is I think what I'm meaning.

This is very, extremely true!!!

[Theresa Hernandez]

if it came down to you and your kids having nowhere to go and no food to eat, then yes! I think we should take care of people who are in these situations until they can recover.

and yay for those laws in Maryland! :)

I totally agree. You may have heartache with the deadbeat dad or the mother who can't get her priorities straight, but the kids need to eat, need clothing, shoes and an education.

Going back to the other thread about women choosing not to abort, if they know that they will be able to provide healthcare, food, shelter, clothing, etc. for their kids without incurring the wrath of the taxpaying Americans, they're more likely to choose life. This is one of the main reasons that abortion rates go DOWN under democratic presidents and increase under republican presidents.

[vegaschristina]

So they're buying cookies with their WIC and that's wasteful, but we don't bat an eye at waste by the rich or stop for a second to think how they get that money they're wasting.

I think she meant food stamps, not WIC, because in another post, someone complained about those on welfare buying junk food. The thing is, would you be as upset if the mom with food stamps bought eggs, flour, sugar, baking soda, butter, vanilla? Those are the ingredients to sugar cookies but are not considered junk food.

There will always be someone who abuses the system. Sadly, there will always be someone who tries to live off of the system.