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.
Rory, if folks like Notti and the OP would just worry about themselves, instead of looking all over trying to find people who might be getting something they aren't, the world would be a much nicer place.
And Long Island would be a much nicer place in particular.
Oh, and Notti? Way to throw out the baby with the bath water. If you don't want anyone to ever get any government assistance for anything, well, let's hope you never get laid off and need to collect unemployment. Better yet, if you do get laid off, put your money where your mouth is and don't file. You clearly don't feel that you are entitled to money from a system you've been paying into your whole working life, so feel free to let someone who understands taxes collect your money.
I wish those on welfare would worry about themselves and not how to bilk me for more welfare money.
If there were no inome taxes my wage and your wage would go up 30% instantly, the gov't will never give a worker more than he paid into a program anyways which means that if you think the gov't will take care of you when your old or sick or unemployed it is a pipe dream, the gov't would be even more broke than it is if it gave unlimited uninsurance to everyone.
Whatever happened to personal responsibilty. There use to be a thing called co-ops in america and they covered people for all kinds of insurance at affordable rates. Since the co-ops were run by the people who were in them cost were kept down and you had less fraud.
My point is that there should be no tax in the first place to administer these government insurances because it encourages people to collect when they are able to do better in their lives.
The problem is gov't, if the gov't never taxed you so much, you would not go out of your way to try to get your money worth
Welfare might use some reforming, but people seem to think it takes up far, far more of the budget than it actually does.
In reality, when you see those federal taxes taken out of your paycheck, they are going to four main areas - the Pentagon, interest on the federal debt, Medicare, and Social Security. State taxes mainly go toward education, policing, jails, roads, and other forms of upkeep.
Welfare programs are a ways down the line.
We could zap them all tomorrow and barely budge the overall taxation or budget situation.
This is something people don't seem to understand. They seem to assume that welfare is a financial behemoth, and that it is responsible for a huge chunk of taxation.
I have no idea where this impression even came from, and overall, I think it distracts us from the main questions of entitlements reform.
"the economic system is like a pyramid scheme. those on the top "own" so they don't need to do actual work and they make the rules, therefore they get perks. those on the bottom have the crappiest jobs and lowest pay, so that is the reason why they may not want to work or unhappy with their work. those in the middle make pretty decent or enough to take care of themselves and some luxuries."
Ok, I have no problem with rich people, if it were up to me, everybody would be rich. If rich people never work again I don't care, it is when rich people get welfare that my blood boils.
"society creates those on the top, middle and bottom so society is obligated to take care of them all as they collect money from them all in some form or another."
society. who is society, the only person obligated to take care of you is your mother and father until your 18. Why should I have to pay for a druf user to get discounted drugs? Why is society giving money to people who are already rich, why does layman brothers who makes more money in a year than I will in a life, than everyone on my street combined, need us to take care of them. There are no rights to be taken care of by your neighbour, charity is a nice thing, but should not be forced. The best charity is job creation and that starts with lowering taxes. No nation or people were ever lifted out of poverty through charity, however capitalism has made a country like equitorial guinea in africa now richer than the country who use to colonize it on a per capita basis.
"you assume those in the middle are somehow the moralistic best for just some inherent reason and that's not true. they have the cushier jobs or sitting government dust bunnies etc. " Maybe that is true, maybe the middle class are overpaid, what I have found is the world is the same everywhere. what I do know is that in no way does taking money from the middle class and redistributing it to other people does not help the situation. If that were the case, then maybe we should just allow haiti and cuba and all the poor countries to come into america and take what they want because by your logic we made them poor so they are entitled to our wealth. No one is entitled to material goods.
"the middle class represents what is best or ideal or balanced and how everyone should live." No, everyone should not be middle class, people who take lots of risk deserve to be rich, bill gates deserved to be rich because he worked hard for it and made an invention known the world over. I don't deserve the same standard of living as bill gates. Like wise larry the dope fein does not deserve the same standard of living as me. He was smoking dope when i was studying hard. How is that fair that lazy people get more?
"now in a capitalist system, this doesn't seem feasible so you obviously can't blame those on the lowest rung as they pay taxes as well into the system. " Well techinically speaking the bottom 50% of earners pay 3-4% of taxes if I am not mistaken. Further the lowest 20% actually not only not pay taxes but get free money from the gov't in the form of rebates and so on.
"the homeless and lost are always going to exist because life and any system isn't perfect. just leave them alone and don't begrudge them for eating the food you throw away. they don't cost society much at all. " I don't, poor people have the right to be as poor as they want. They just should not force me using a man with a gun and handcuffs to go arrest me, who takes away all my liberty under threat of prison, being raped by other prisoners in jail or stabbed in the neck with a shank from behind and thrown in the same prison as murderers for tax evasion. That is where IMO taxes and "social justice" go too far. It is one thing to say help the poor, it is another to throw me in prison if I don't
'expired food donations from grocery stores, a few shelters here and there for them to shower and donated old clothes are a penny in a huge pot.
it's ignorant to assume that people get large welfare checks anyways. if they have a drug habit, they will need to do more than get a welfare check to keep up the habit. " Yes but you encourage the behaviour is 1 by giving them free money, 2 your rewarding someone who is able bodied not to work.
i don't understand the post. i merely illustrated how the system is and you counter with how you don't like the system but then you defend the system and reasons of economic disparity. it's back to square one. your unrealistic on several points because even though bill gates is very wealthy, he can't possibly spend all that money so he's basically giving it back to society or to charity. the only difference is instead of the government deciding how that money is utilized or redistributed, he can. again, technically it's not a perfect system but a round about game of economics.
it's just a reality that some people will fall through the cracks for one reason or another. when i mention the living standards of the middle class, i'm referring to having the means to a decent life and i said nothing about taking taxes from the middle class anyways. i morally disagree with your value system on this one. i don't think just because you are middle class that you somehow deserve to have a decent life but someone who is working just as hard but of lower class somehow doesn't which you implied. why not? how the hell do you have a right to have a good life but not someone who fixes your plumbing or serves your dinner or collect your garbage? they provide a service or a necessary service. it could be argued equally that they shouldn't have to pick up your damn garbage if they can't make a decent living. if you don't think it's worth it, do it yourself.
of course it is ideal that everyone should be able to work and provide a decent living and afford some luxuries in life. that is what makes us human and gives us some dignity rather than just scraping by with no dreams other than mere survival. how dare you think some person should have to live like that because their job should be of lower pay that they can't provide for themselves and have a life. do you think a waitress that works thier butt off doesn't deserve to have a good life? why do you think people try to 'climb the ladder'. of course, those who have jobs with more skills and education should be logically paid more BUT anyone who works ethically should also be able to afford enough to take care of themselves and afford a few luxuries. why this is logical is because there will always be people needed on the bottom to do jobs that are necessary for society. if these weren't services provided to society, then it would be excusable as frivolous provided there were plenty of jobs to go around for them as well.
as for taxes, evidently you are obligated to pay taxes so you need to argue with government as to how they utilize it.
if you want it, people need to lobby government to abolish taxes then.
Quote:
Well techinically speaking the bottom 50% of earners pay 3-4% of taxes if I am not mistaken. Further the lowest 20% actually not only not pay taxes but get free money from the gov't in the form of rebates and so on.
heh, i just caught this. the bottom earners pay taxes between 15 to 28 percent. it's even worse because they don't earn that much. if you work or have worked you would know this already. i didn't like the fact i saw almost 350 dollars deducted from my check every week that cut my pay almost by half! maybe it was the state i was in at the time. usually it's about a third. i could only claim myself, still it's a hefty amount. you pay less taxes if you have family members to support or can claim more deductions.
besides, taxable income is usually factored into salary in most jobs meaning if your position is worth 70k, you may be paid 100k.
tablemtn, I absolutely agree. Welfare is just one of the many problems and it we be absurd to think that stopping welfare would fix everything, but it definitely is a problem that must be taken care of. I think way too many people rely on forms of welfare. Use welfare as a slight helping hand when your down (after all, if they paid taxes they DID pay into it) but that's it. People need some initiative to go & work. Shouldn't being able to support your family be enough of an incentive?
Well the thing is, a lot of people on social assistance actually have jobs.
The federal minimum wage is sort of a tradeoff. The idea was that the wage would be set quite low compared to other developed countries, but that the state would help the "working poor" with programs like food stamps or certain other measures.
Also, when the unemployment rate in many areas is 10-15%, simply telling people to go out and work isn't necessarily possible, nor would it necessarily keep people off of social assistance, since many of the available jobs are minimum wage. If they are minimum-wage and don't provide healthcare, that's another blow. If they are minimum-wage and part-time, people might not even make enough to justify the car expense it takes to get to the worksite.
Every day I am disgusted as to what I see going on here on Long Island. I am a middle class American citizen. I do not receive any government assistance. I work hard for everything that I have, and I understand the value of a dollar. Welfare is a means of getting on your feet, not a way of life! Now I am not talking about EVERYONE on welfare. There are many people on public assistance who use it how it is meant to be used - as a hand to help you up when you are down. Unfortunately, the welfare system is flawed and therefore abused.
When I go food shopping I look for items on sale, purchase in bulk, & buy non brand name items to get the most for my money. I have noticed customers with gold chains & these fancy new expensive cell phones on line paying with food stamps. Not only that, their carts are filled with all NAME BRAND items regardless of if they are on sale or not. Steaks, candy, cookies, soda ect without regards to price. Many times I have been approached by a person offering to sell me food stamps for 50% cash. What about the drug addicts that receive all these benefits? They get health care, schooling, all kinds of public assistance, even DENTAL! I see many drug addicts on welfare who use all of that money on drugs, have no food in the house, no clothes for their kids yet nothing is done. After making several phone calls about a family with kids in a very unhealthy environment I asked the State employee about issuing drug tests. I was told that it was too costly to drug test everyone on public assistance and also an INVASION of their PRIVACY!!! Are you kidding me? They are being supported by the taxpayers & we're worried about invasion of privacy?!? What about protecting an investment or looking out for the innocent children being neglected and abused? A neighbors 3 year old child was walking 2 houses down from where they lived. He wanted to be with mommy who walked down the block & no one else in the house was watching him as he ran right out the front door! This was not the first time this has happened and there has been complaints filed yet nothing has changed.
Over the summer, president Obama issued $200 for every child living in a household on welfare. This was in the form of $200 per child being put onto their EBT card. Most kids from families NOT on welfare that DO NOT spend $200 on school supplies. This one family in particular, with 4 eligable children, received a total of $800. The mother then went down to a church where she received a voucher for the thrift store AND school supplies. The youngest of the children received NOTHING. The other 3 children each got $30 to spend, plus a couple of school books. Think back to the end of the summer. I find it kind of ironic that after that money was given, the amount of old tv sets & empty new TV boxes I saw in the trash.
I know of THREE families all on welfare, & all living in the same house. NONE of them work! They live in a very nice house. They receive help from the state with the rent on the house, & they also rent the house out to the 2 other families! All three families are on welfare but the other 2 families use the address of family members which is never investigated or verified. To top it off, all THREE families receive a fuel voucher - yet 2 weeks ago they called asking to borrow money because they were OUT OF FUEL. For TWO days they had no heat or hot water. There are 8 children from the age of 2 - 13 in that house! (Not to mention 6 adults & 3 children over 18). I failed to mention that 8 people in that house smoke cigarettes & 7 have cell phones. One person even has 2 cell phones. Mind you, very nice phones at that.
So you mean to tell me that the children have to suffer with NO HEAT & HOT WATER because they cannot afford oil yet they all have a full pack of smokes & a fancy new phone?!??!?!
Something is seriously wrong with the system. Where is the incentive for these people to go out & get a job?
This is the epitome of a heartless elitist rant. First of all, you are making too many generalizations. You seem to be assuming too many things about the family in question. Your obvious anger could possibly be clouding your judgement. Also, what is wrong with a poor person owning a cell phone? What is wrong with a foodstamp recipient eating name-brand food? Would you feel better if they ate 39 cent cans of cat food for dinner and washed it down with toilet bowl water?
What about Wall St. execs getting your hard earned tax dollars to bail them out of their stupid mistakes and then turning around and just dividing it up amongst themselves? What about that? Billions and billions of dollars, a hand-out. They got you brainwashed and angry and mad at the wrong people. Their plan is working perfectly, divide and conquer, it's a classic strategy. So get mad and angry at poor people, who are most likely poor through no fault of their own, people who receive the bare minimum to hold some dignity together; while corporate fat-cat welfare recepients laugh all the way to the bank. And make no mistake about it: those slimy, fake capitalist thieves who stole our money are the real welfare frauds.
Please don't rat that family out. Leave them and the modicum of dignity that they have alone.
Well the thing is, a lot of people on social assistance actually have jobs.
The federal minimum wage is sort of a tradeoff. The idea was that the wage would be set quite low compared to other developed countries, but that the state would help the "working poor" with programs like food stamps or certain other measures.
Also, when the unemployment rate in many areas is 10-15%, simply telling people to go out and work isn't necessarily possible, nor would it necessarily keep people off of social assistance, since many of the available jobs are minimum wage. If they are minimum-wage and don't provide healthcare, that's another blow. If they are minimum-wage and part-time, people might not even make enough to justify the car expense it takes to get to the worksite.
But don't you know? Sweeping floors should be enough to feed a family of four.
I wish those on welfare would worry about themselves and not how to bilk me for more welfare money.
Somehow, I doubt people on welfare give a flying toot at a rolling donut about bilking you. As others have said, you're raging on the wrong people. Look at Wall Street and the health insurance industry for the real crooks.
Well the thing is, a lot of people on social assistance actually have jobs.
The federal minimum wage is sort of a tradeoff. The idea was that the wage would be set quite low compared to other developed countries, but that the state would help the "working poor" with programs like food stamps or certain other measures.
Also, when the unemployment rate in many areas is 10-15%, simply telling people to go out and work isn't necessarily possible, nor would it necessarily keep people off of social assistance, since many of the available jobs are minimum wage. If they are minimum-wage and don't provide healthcare, that's another blow. If they are minimum-wage and part-time, people might not even make enough to justify the car expense it takes to get to the worksite.
Before unemployment rates went up, people were complaining about the farm bill.
The vast majority ( 67% )of the expenditures spent from the farm bill was for----nutritional aid
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.
