Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not an example of a poor decision. However, once one is responsible for oneself, then the decisions made are one's own responsibility.
The objective is to get an education and make oneself marketable in the economy, so that one doesn't live paycheck to paycheck. If one decides to drop out of school or to not advance one's education, then one must be held responsible and it IS their fault.
Yes. Everyone has the opportunity to pull themselves out of that rut. Is it fair to make others, who have decided to achieve to be responsible to provide them their needs?
I agree with most of this, believe it or not.
well my point is... some people wish to privatize the school system.. and make people pay for it.. but I think that would only make poor children born to poor parents... become victims of capitalism.. Whether we like it or not.. SOME social programs must exist.. and be available to everyone EVEN the rich.. that is how we ensure that everyone has the same opportunities available to them.. A rich person can choose to send their kids to a private school if they wish.. but that doesn't take away their opportunity to go to a public school.. they are merely choosing to do so...
Yes. Whether it's income-based (the "Flat Tax") or consumption-based (the "Fair Tax"), having everyone taxed on an equal footing is the only way that's truly justifiable in a free society.
2. Are we helping the poor too much?
If this question is based on government-funded "services" provided, then I'd say currently we're not helping the poor...AT ALL!
Giving them "free" transfers of other people's money via government social-program spending does NOT help those in need. On the contrary...it robs them of their dignity and self-worth, hampers their ability to be self-sufficient, and traps them in a cycle of dependency on the public dole.
To really help the poor, all this "government cheese" should be stopped immediately and permanently!
3. Should taxation be related to spending? (spend more=pay more taxes)
Related to personal spending, i.e. consumption? Heck YES! That way, savings and investment (the things that truly drive the economy in the long term) are encouraged. Revenue to the government becomes dependent on people's confidence, ability & willingness to spend—as it always should be!
If a flat tax is 100% fair, then we should do something to get rid of unethical business and government practice to level the playing field as well.
I agree with you regarding current social programs. However, I don't think that social programs need to be abolished, but rather, need to do a 180 (give a man a fish...etc).
I'm taking education classes at the moment, as part of a teacher certification program. In one of my courses, I read about several studies related to early child development, some of which started in the 1970s. Why we don't have more social programs in place that follow the conclusions of these studies, I really don't know.
The studies either included poor families or single mothers, or teenage mothers. The services offered were counseling, pro-child development day care and preschool, nurse visits to the participants' homes, quality healthcare, proper nutrition and other services. No financial handouts were given. Most of the studies lasted at least 15 years, so they had a good sense of the results over time. It turned out that with counseling, etc, the families were able to support themselves because in many cases, they just had no clue what they should be doing. In the case involving single mothers, results showed that compared to this demographic in the general population, the focus group had 80% fewer families on welfare. Also, the children who had this care from almost right after birth had fewer behavioral issues, were more successful in school, etc.
The cost of the programs would be much less than welfare or other such monetary handouts, and those who would participate would, if the results are correct, become productive members of society, rather than leeches or part of the correctional system. Obviously, since I want to be a teacher, I believe that giving kids, or people in general, tools for independence, rather than holding their hands through life, or having to punish them for bad behavior, is better for society, for our economy, and for the individuals.
So, why don't we have programs like this? Instead, we put a bandaid on the problem, while the wound festers.
PS: one of the attitudes regarding social programs here in the U.S. is "well, I work hard for my money, so their problem is not my problem." The flaw in this logic is that with the butterfly effect, or whatever you want to call it, things like the high cost of higher education and healthcare are most certainly everyone's problem. That poor kid who lives on the other side of town has a few choices in life: the easy road (a life of crime or lethargy), or the hard road (figuring out some way to go to college and being a productive member of society, rather than destructive).
Isn't it a benefit to everyone if we give that kid a hand so that it's easier for him to choose the hard road and get a job that benefits every one of us? Even if he doesn't decide to be a doctor, being able to contribute to the economy benefits everyone. So, that's why I believe that social programs need to exist, though not in their current form.
Whew, that was a rant, I'm sorry for it being so long and I do not mean to sound mean or angry, I've just been at the bottom and seen what it does and I don't see a free market as being a solution for people at the bottom.
I'm totally with you. But the thing is we live in a nuclear family society, which means that unless people are bleeding hearts like you and I, they will fight to take care of their own, regardless of how others struggle. I agree that it's our social responsibility to help those who are genuinely struggling, despite working so hard (I'm in school full time, have a 1 year old and also work over 40 hours per week. Luckily, I can get by with less than 5 hours of sleep on a regular basis). Anyway, there are many people who think it's unfair to put the burden of others on them, which I understand when the burden is unjustified, but many times it's genuine struggle, and I believe that in order to be an evolved, civilized society, to advance, we really need to make sure that everyone who works hard can make it. Social responsibility really is an investment in the future, but unfortunately many in this country are living to make the highest $ today, regardless of the consequences later on.
This is not an example of a poor decision. However, once one is responsible for oneself, then the decisions made are one's own responsibility.
The objective is to get an education and make oneself marketable in the economy, so that one doesn't live paycheck to paycheck. If one decides to drop out of school or to not advance one's education, then one must be held responsible and it IS their fault.
Yes. Everyone has the opportunity to pull themselves out of that rut. Is it fair to make others, who have decided to achieve to be responsible to provide them their needs?
I agree with most of this, believe it or not.
I agree that each of us needs to take responsibility for our own lives, however, in this economy, it is impossible to get a higher education without assistance. Arizona State, one of the cheapest "public" universities in the nation, now costs at least $3000/semester. Before I had my son, I was unable to get a Pell Grant. Due to cost of living and low wages, I would have had to save up for at least 5+ years to pay the tuition from savings, at which point the tuition would have been a lot more than what I would have saved, since tuition increases at least by 7% every year (one year, tuition increased by 13%). I was approved for unsubsidized student loans, which paid for my tuition, but I still had to cover my own living expenses from my paycheck. So, while I was finishing my degree, I was also accruing interest on those loans. When my parents attended ASU in the 70s, classes cost $15 each, so they were able to afford college and save up for a year if they needed to.
That's just not the case anymore. Unless their parents are rich and can afford to pay all tuition and living expenses, or had enough extra cash to save up over the years, students today graduate with massive debt, and with so many layoffs and outsourcing, the prospect of finding a job with a decent salary is sometimes difficult. So, the problem compounds. Debt+less money=disaster.
As a student, I know it's a struggle. I've been working the entire time I've been in college, and I still have massive debt. I don't regret having debt because I have a piece of paper that says I did my time, but I just think it would be to everyone's benefit to help those who wish to educate themselves a little more. A little encouragement can go a long way.
The "Fair Tax" is cute and all, but I've never read an analysis that shows how it can realistically raise the necessary revenues required for a first world country.
To me its no different than communism - something that sounds great in theory, fails miserably in practice.
If it weren't for the fact that the ultra rich, the .01% of our population, didn't pay less percentage wise than the middle class, I don't think there's all that much revolutionary change required on our tax system. And that's my problem with these Ron Paul types, who wax so poetically about the grave injustice of the income tax.
Yet tell me again where the US was economically before the income tax was instituted, and where it is now? It's such an economic burden, that we became the economic power of the world, much of the time with our highest tax rate at 90%. You can't point to another first world economic country succeeding with Ron Paul's ideas on taxations. I personally don't quite see the need to bankrupt our country to satisfy some poorly thought theory that doesn't deserve to see the light out of an econ 101 classroom.
I agree that each of us needs to take responsibility for our own lives, however, in this economy, it is impossible to get a higher education without assistance. Arizona State, one of the cheapest "public" universities in the nation, now costs at least $3000/semester. Before I had my son, I was unable to get a Pell Grant. Due to cost of living and low wages, I would have had to save up for at least 5+ years to pay the tuition from savings, at which point the tuition would have been a lot more than what I would have saved, since tuition increases at least by 7% every year (one year, tuition increased by 13%). I was approved for unsubsidized student loans, which paid for my tuition, but I still had to cover my own living expenses from my paycheck. So, while I was finishing my degree, I was also accruing interest on those loans. When my parents attended ASU in the 70s, classes cost $15 each, so they were able to afford college and save up for a year if they needed to.
That's just not the case anymore. Unless their parents are rich and can afford to pay all tuition and living expenses, or had enough extra cash to save up over the years, students today graduate with massive debt, and with so many layoffs and outsourcing, the prospect of finding a job with a decent salary is sometimes difficult. So, the problem compounds. Debt+less money=disaster.
As a student, I know it's a struggle. I've been working the entire time I've been in college, and I still have massive debt. I don't regret having debt because I have a piece of paper that says I did my time, but I just think it would be to everyone's benefit to help those who wish to educate themselves a little more. A little encouragement can go a long way.
I agree that there are those who are working to better themselves who need assistance in doing so. These people I have sympathy and am willing to help. As a matter of fact, I have one young man now who is doing just that, who I am helping along. How do I help? I have loaned him money to help with his transportation to school. In return, he helps me with work around the house periodically. Some may ask why I just don't give him the money instead of loaning it to him. Because his choices early in life has put him in this situation and he should be held responsible for digging himself out of it, a life lesson. As a result, though he has received a grant to help pay for his initial tuition, he has enrolled in a program which will allow him to work off his future grants by visiting high schools and promoting the need for secondary education.
You're correct in stating that helping these type students will benefit nearly everyone in one way or another. However, teaching them the principles of responsibility and self-sufficiency will help even more later in life.
I've read several posts that make a lot of sense concerning real needs by people who truly need help. Those of us who advocate a reduction in taxes and a reduction in government run services understand these needs. The difference is that we believe that private charities and organizations, families, and churches are better at determining who actually needs help and who are only looking for handouts. By allowing people to keep more of their money, this type of assistance would receive more resources and be able to truly help more people. I know it would allow me to do more.
The Fair Tax, of which there are current legislative bills available,(H.R. 25; Senate Bill 1943), not to be confused with the flat tax, not only provides a more equitable discretionary tax plan, but it encourages legal immigration by requiring everyone to pay taxes when they purchase some item, but, if they want to qualify for the prebate for essentials they must be documented. It would also receive revenue from the underground economy by taxing drug money when dealers purchase items. It would also encourage industry to stay in the U.S. as well as encourage those who have moved overseas to move back because of the elimination of capital gains and other business taxes. It's a win/win for all citizens. The only ones negatively affected are power-hungry politicians, those benefitting from the underground economy including, but not limited to, drug dealers, illegal gambling, and illegal immigrants who work for money under-the-table, corporations that rely upon tax loopholes, and IRS employees.
I've read several posts that make a lot of sense concerning real needs by people who truly need help. Those of us who advocate a reduction in taxes and a reduction in government run services understand these needs. The difference is that we believe that private charities and organizations, families, and churches are better at determining who actually needs help and who are only looking for handouts. By allowing people to keep more of their money, this type of assistance would receive more resources and be able to truly help more people. I know it would allow me to do more.
Its wonderful you are so benevolent. Here's the problem though, by allowing people to keep more and more of their own money, yeah that first generation of rags to riches might be generous. Their children who will inherit all of their money (because there is no appropriate estate tax on the upper class) has no idea of how it is to pull themselves out, and they will be less likely to help. The empathy which you have for hardworking poor will not be felt as strongly by the younger generation. They'll just say "too bad pull yourself up by your boot straps."
Also you say that everyone has a chance to succeed, at what cost is their chance. No one should have to ruin their health and neglect their children to succeed. Yeah I know the go to school during the day and work at night and then see your family in your dreams is a way of success, should they be expected to do that. If someone is capable of success, why must a gauntlet be thrown down just because their poor.
I'll sympathize with the rich when I see their children lose limbs fighting in Iraq, when I see their children have to work 30 hours a week washing dishes to pay for college. Until I see that I'm gonna hold to my belief that tax needs to be income based and it needs to be extremely high on the upper class.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
