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.
Instead of whining about how your tax dollars are going towards a "welfare mom," just think about what's been paid for by the government that you've enjoyed and reaped the benefits of:
-FDA ((Unless you don't eat and don't take meds... you have))
-Roads/Interstates ((may not be the best taken care of, but they get you from point A to point B))
-Standards of Educations ((You went to school, right?))
-BBB
-Criminal/Civil justice system
-USPS
Just to name a few."
The tax payers do not fund the USPS, its a private corporation, governed by congress, its not a tax payers liability. (used to be until privatized several years ago, reason for all the postage increases lately)
The BBB, is also a private corporation, has no connection to the government what so ever, never had any connection to it..
As for the other three, there is a huge difference between public good, and private doctor bills. HUGE difference.
Actually I am a homeowner, and I actually do not claim my interest, in my situation it wouldnt matter one way or the other. That being said, I chose to buy a house, I chose to finance that house, why in the world would home owners get a tax deduction where tenants do not? Dont split my words, I said NO deductions, I didnt say please cancel all deductions but the ones I qualify for..
So you dont claim your kids as deductions? Or the married tax deduction?
Actually I am a homeowner, and I actually do not claim my interest, in my situation it wouldnt matter one way or the other. That being said, I chose to buy a house, I chose to finance that house, why in the world would home owners get a tax deduction where tenants do not? Dont split my words, I said NO deductions, I didnt say please cancel all deductions but the ones I qualify for..
Not to get off topic.. but if you don't claim your interest, you're actually de-frauding the government. You said yourself that you have adopted 2 kids. You get the EIC for that. If you don't claim the kids, you're defrauding the government.
So, either you're really defrauding the government and committing a felonious crime.. or you are one of the millions of parents who get "welfare" in the form of a tax break.
I see no problem with it. The government isn't giving you a handout but rather is saying "Good job. Now use this and get your kid something special" or "Great job on succeeding in life to get a house. Here's a gift for booming the economy so you can do that repair you've wanted to do"
Back to the main topic: The "overbearing" kindness of the government is abused. But does that mean that people who may need assistance should be denied? Does that mean that in the process of switching to a better job that the family should go without insurance for a while?
Or do we really expect that one of the parents will stay at their old job with benefits? Every family dynamic is different. Some are moochers, some are "go-getters", and some are the everyday average worker who might stay at his/her current lower-paying job because of the scare of losing insurance. Especially those with children. Parents are "sacrificing" higher paying jobs so that they can provide insurance for their children.
Off topic again:
¬¬' It's almost amusing that this conversation went from vetoing a bill, to good vs bad parents, to tax break discussions..... and so on.
Another thing, PGH, you've made this political discussion very interesting and insightful. Glad we can all be civil and chat.
Not to get off topic.. but if you don't claim your interest, you're actually de-frauding the government. You said yourself that you have adopted 2 kids. You get the EIC for that. If you don't claim the kids, you're defrauding the government.
So, either you're really defrauding the government and committing a felonious crime.. or you are one of the millions of parents who get "welfare" in the form of a tax break.
I see no problem with it. The government isn't giving you a handout but rather is saying "Good job. Now use this and get your kid something special" or "Great job on succeeding in life to get a house. Here's a gift for booming the economy so you can do that repair you've wanted to do"
Back to the main topic: The "overbearing" kindness of the government is abused. But does that mean that people who may need assistance should be denied? Does that mean that in the process of switching to a better job that the family should go without insurance for a while?
Or do we really expect that one of the parents will stay at their old job with benefits? Every family dynamic is different. Some are moochers, some are "go-getters", and some are the everyday average worker who might stay at his/her current lower-paying job because of the scare of losing insurance. Especially those with children. Parents are "sacrificing" higher paying jobs so that they can provide insurance for their children.
Off topic again:
¬¬' It's almost amusing that this conversation went from vetoing a bill, to good vs bad parents, to tax break discussions..... and so on.
Another thing, PGH, you've made this political discussion very interesting and insightful. Glad we can all be civil and chat.
Your not defrauding the government by not claiming a deduction jees.. I have had them send it back, telling me that I'd qualify for A and B, to re-amend the return if I feel I qualify, but its not needed.. I still wouldnt get a higher refund, nor would I owe more.. Its a unique case and not applicable for most.. so yes, its off topic..
As for those "needing" assistance, do you really, honestly, believe that someone who brings in $30K a year should be paying higher taxes, so that someone who brings in $80K a year can have free medical? You cant HONESTLY believe that? Thats exactly what this bill does..
I dont care what he asks for that I cant provide him because of "higher" inflated taxes.. I earned it, I should not be FORCED to pay for someone elses medical, in this instance, who makes more then I do..
There is a huge difference is the "public" good expenses such as police and infrastructure vs a "private" expense such as a doctors bill.
Perhase a "valid" option would be to offer a checkmark on peoples tax returns.. Would you like to donate $3 to help poor people with medical expenses.. at that point.. its a CHOICE.. I cant see why I can choose to donate to an election fund.. but not choose to help those less fortunate, (or more fortunate in this case)
But why should police and infrastructure be public while healthcare remains private? All three are pretty equally necessary for a basic standard of living & safety.
But why should police and infrastructure be public while healthcare remains private? All three are pretty equally necessary for a basic standard of living & safety.
Um.. no.. your healthcare has no bearing upon my standard of living and/or safety.. None, it may have a bearing upon your standards of living, not mine. While we all need police (unless you want an uncontrolled society) and we all need roads to get to home-work to have the economy move, I dont need you to have healthcare in order to survive, the economy doesnt rely on you having healthcare to move and grow.. Tell me how YOU having healthcare would benefit society, and have it be more of a valid point then you having free healthcare being a drain on society.
What happens when I breathe my contagious disease on you, and can't come to work at the business you run because I had to call in sick? Not everyone thinks they "need" healthcare right now but you could be just one genetic defect or accident away from being in the same boat as all those "irresponsible American fat idiots who want me to pay for their stupid unneccesary healthcare."
But your argument is stupid. I don't need YOU to have police protection in order to survive, either. I don't need the neighborhood YOU live in to have paved streets.
The tax payers do not fund the USPS, its a private corporation, governed by congress, its not a tax payers liability. (used to be until privatized several years ago, reason for all the postage increases lately)
Unless I'm confusing something, the taxpayers do fund the USPS, and to the tune of 3.72 billion a year.
The USPS is often mistaken for a government-owned corporation (e.g., Amtrak), but as noted above is legally defined as an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States," (39 U.S.C. § 201) as it is wholly owned by the government and controlled by the Presidential appointees and the Postmaster General. As a quasi-governmental agency, it has many special privileges, including sovereign immunity, eminent domain powers, powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign nations, and an exclusive legal right to deliver first-class and third-class mail. Indeed, in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the USPS was not a government-owned corporation and therefore could not be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act.[2]
What happens when I breathe my contagious disease on you, and can't come to work at the business you run because I had to call in sick?
What happens when you get into a car accident and cant come to work, perhapse we should have car insurance on the tax rolls for those who cant afford it..
As an employer, I'd want you to be here, so I should offer affordable insurance. This is where the effort needs to be placed.. not taking money from people who make $30K a year, and giving it to those who make $80K..
If your pulling in $80K a year.. I dont want to hear you dont have $100 to spend on a doctors visit and you need "welfar".. I support my family on 1/4th of that and we live just fine..
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.
