B
BobP123
Guest
Why tax at all if “deficits don’t matter”??
- Status
M
melensdad
Guest
True, but this thread is not about exploiting workers.
This thread is also not about cutting off funding to the poor, to the working poor, etc.
The real question is really aimed at extending social welfare programs to the middle class, those people who are making enough money to have choices, live decent lives, and go on the occasional vacation with their family. The people who buy a new car when needed, but not whenever wanted. The folks who work hard to send their kids to college, clip coupons, but still occasionally go out to dinner.
If people have enough means to live a moderately comfortable life then is it moral to support a system that may make these people somewhat dependent upon the government dole?
If you pay 1/2 your income in taxes, and someone else pays only 1/4 of their income in taxes and they can afford to pay for what the government now provides via a social program that is paid for out of your 50% tax rate, then are you being treat justly?
And if the middle class now becomes dependent upon your taxable income, have we created a system where we expanded the ‘dependent’ class to the detriment of all classes?
W
WonderfulLife
Guest
I actually don’t view government transfers as ‘dependency’.
The elite benefits the most from redistribution of wealth - you need look no further than no-bid contracts like Halliburton and the like. The middle class benefits too, low-interest small business loans, low-interest college loans, etc and everyone benefits from transfers that cover roads, the justice system, police, fire departments, education, insurance on banks etc.
That said, this new bill that proposes to increase taxes to fund middle class children’s health care pretty much exclusively off the backs of the statistically much poorer class which comprises most smokers strikes me as a typically American reverse Robin Hood. Rob the poor to pay for the rich. Nothing new here.
If that’s what you are referring to, I am in agreement with you that that particular bill should not pass.
The elite benefits the most from redistribution of wealth - you need look no further than no-bid contracts like Halliburton and the like. The middle class benefits too, low-interest small business loans, low-interest college loans, etc and everyone benefits from transfers that cover roads, the justice system, police, fire departments, education, insurance on banks etc.
That said, this new bill that proposes to increase taxes to fund middle class children’s health care pretty much exclusively off the backs of the statistically much poorer class which comprises most smokers strikes me as a typically American reverse Robin Hood. Rob the poor to pay for the rich. Nothing new here.
If that’s what you are referring to, I am in agreement with you that that particular bill should not pass.
M
melensdad
Guest
The question is AT WHAT POINT does it become dependency and IS IT MORAL to support a state that expands ‘dependency’ beyond those in need.
Great generalization, and even demonization of the upper class. But we are not talking about Halibuton here. Heck, a small businessperson who files taxes as an “S” type corp can easily pay 50% in taxes and I’d guess that is the case here, but many others qualify and are not “Haliburton”
"Alphonsus_John:
So now the middle class is rich?
But I do agree with your logic. However, looking at tobacco taxes, they also tend to reduce sales of tobacco which in turn reduces future revenues, which in turn means that the politicians come back to tax us again a couple years down the line and those taxes tend to be far more broad based. Several states that raised tobacco taxes over the past decade to fund specific programs have had to raise Sales and Income taxes to make up for the reduced number smokers.
While I did start this thread because of the SCRIP bill that has been floating around the halls of Washington, I am not trying to debate that specific bill. That bill is typical of the type of thing that I would be concerned with. Clearly it expands health care well beyond the “needy” or the “poor” but hardly expands it to the rich.
G
Greg27
Guest
I think this is a complex issue. I think on one hand, it is reasonable to expect people who have the ability and skills to do so to work and support themselves and their families in an honourable and decent way. I also think it is reasonable for a citizen of a democratic country to expect their government is prudent and responsible in how they use revenue gained from various sources, including taxes. In a free market economy, the government should encourage private enterprise and freedom, and also not run deficits.
In the global economy, the cradle to grave welfare model of the state’s benefits is not really sustainable economically, especially with the ageing of the population in developed countries, combined with the below-replacement birth rates. Europe and Japan face grave problems as the birth rates there are extremely low, while people are living longer. From an economic perspective, the birthrate needs to be raised, or else migration will have to increase, or people will have to keep working for longer periods of time.
The Nordic countries seem to have achieved a good balance between private enterprise and social welfare, though even in those countries their economies are creaking a bit under the strain of many people not productively working. This seems to suggest then more reform in favour of a smaller state role in welfare and the economy is required.
I think in the global economy, a welfare state is not sustainable in an economic sense, at least in its classical form. From a moral perspective, considering questions of human dignity and justice require that some provision should be made for those who for some reason or another, are disadvantaged to the point where their dignity and humanity are placed in severe danger, especially by severe poverty. Still, it is a complex matter on how much intervention the state should have in the lives of people and in the economy.
In the global economy, the cradle to grave welfare model of the state’s benefits is not really sustainable economically, especially with the ageing of the population in developed countries, combined with the below-replacement birth rates. Europe and Japan face grave problems as the birth rates there are extremely low, while people are living longer. From an economic perspective, the birthrate needs to be raised, or else migration will have to increase, or people will have to keep working for longer periods of time.
The Nordic countries seem to have achieved a good balance between private enterprise and social welfare, though even in those countries their economies are creaking a bit under the strain of many people not productively working. This seems to suggest then more reform in favour of a smaller state role in welfare and the economy is required.
I think in the global economy, a welfare state is not sustainable in an economic sense, at least in its classical form. From a moral perspective, considering questions of human dignity and justice require that some provision should be made for those who for some reason or another, are disadvantaged to the point where their dignity and humanity are placed in severe danger, especially by severe poverty. Still, it is a complex matter on how much intervention the state should have in the lives of people and in the economy.
W
WonderfulLife
Guest
I’m going to divide this for length and clarity.
Is it MORAL for the well off to profit off stealing the value of the labor of workers’ hands, make them needy and then whinge about having to return some of it as “welfare” subsistence living while simultaneously defiling their character?
W
WonderfulLife
Guest
Sometime the proper reaction to an outrageous situation is to be outraged.
Jesus threw the moneylenders out of the temple. He didn’t decide he shouldn’t do something about it because it might hurt some rich abusers’ feelings and that would be mean.
Shame can be an appropriate emotion at times.
W
WonderfulLife
Guest
I’m glad we agree on at least one point.
M
melensdad
Guest
No, it is not moral to abuse workers. I think we all agree on that point. But that is also not the topic here.
Again, you are taking us waaaay off topic.
If you could address the situation that was presented then we might have some constructive discussion.
W
WonderfulLife
Guest
I agree and most people do but many of those who work are still poor. What now?
Generally agree with some slight difference on reasonable deficit spending. It’s too technical to go into here.
In agreement. In part, the lowered birthrate is a result of poverty. In the U.S. abortions increased greatly under Bush’s diminishing economy while they had fallen greatly under Clinton. People have to be able to afford families to choose to reproduce in a society that makes that choice an opportunity.
If the U.S. really wanted to be ‘family-friendly’, it would take steps to ensure that companies that do business here pay workers living wages that can sustain families.
Russia has a negative population growth and has had to encourage massive immigration to make up for it. That is going to happen here if we listen to the capitalists who say our government doesn’t owe people the opportunity to work, just wages and that some laborer from another country will work for $2 a day. If I wanted to live in Calcutta I’d move there. I don’t wish to see it recreated here by economic policy.
I think if you get off the words “welfare state” which implies that someone is receiving something they haven’t earned and look at it as if people living in a country should have an opportunity to support themselves in that country and that care should be taken for the few who can’t, we are in agreement.
M
melensdad
Guest
While I know that was not directed to me, let me please suggest that we try to stay on topic.
Again we are not talking about the poor or the working poor getting aid. Clearly a case can be made for the state providing that without cuts.
The real question, which you seem to frequently and therefore I presume intentionally sidestep is the comfortable middle class getting aid when it is not necessary. When does the government overstep its bounds and begin to suck people into the belief that they are “owed” something from society? Where do we split “socialism” from some form of regulated democracy? Does socialism simply creep into democracies and therefore lead them to a path where more and more services are “demanded” by more and more people who otherwise are able to earn enough to pay their way?
W
WonderfulLife
Guest
Will this help?
I am not a socialist. I am a Catholic who aligns primarily with social democracy as a political system. I think the U.S. is not far enough towards that with regards to our poor, elderly and disabled and that some countries are too far that direction (Germany for example and they are now having trouble with it). I think there is a middle ground and I think we as a country should strive for it.
I think the middle class already get a fair amount of redistribution and I don’t begrudge it. I think giving more redistribution to the middle class (or the rich) is unnecessary, counterproductive and a crying shame while the poor needs more help.
I also think if our government would root out fraud and waste we could take considerably better care of our poor AND cut taxes, but it’s not going to happen because power corrupts and the financially powerful will never let it happen.
M
melensdad
Guest
Funny but none of that is on topic either.
These parts in bold are the only parts on topic, at least sort of. You still missed the morality portion of the question.
As I have said before, I’m really sorry that I even started this thread because so many folks seem to completely focus on the poor and the rich and the thread is not about either. It is about the middle class that has been described more than once, those who may want, but don’t need, those who are capable and have the means to make some choices. It is about the morality of a government that begins to provide that group with services when they are clearly capable of paying for similar services out of their income and still pay for things like cable TV or the occasional dinner at a nice cafe, etc.
W
WonderfulLife
Guest
Personally I believe all my posts were topical and relevant to the thread. I’m sorry you disagree.
I don’t believe I can answer your question because any response within the realms you’ve set for acceptability preclude an adequate and thoughtful response.
I can’t even tell what your question is.
If it’s “do I think the government helping it’s citizens is immoral?” then no.
If it’s “do I think socialism is Teh Great Evil and immoral by the doctrine of the Catholic Church?” it’s no even though I think socialism itself doesn’t work in the real world.
Would you like to take a shot at clarifying your question?
I don’t believe I can answer your question because any response within the realms you’ve set for acceptability preclude an adequate and thoughtful response.
I can’t even tell what your question is.
If it’s “do I think the government helping it’s citizens is immoral?” then no.
If it’s “do I think socialism is Teh Great Evil and immoral by the doctrine of the Catholic Church?” it’s no even though I think socialism itself doesn’t work in the real world.
Would you like to take a shot at clarifying your question?
A
Alphonsus_John
Guest
No, Melen’s dad, it’s not moral, it’s not fair, and it is not just. But people like to vote themselves bennies they cannot afford and we are saddled with corrupt politicians who are drunk on power.
M
melensdad
Guest
Or is it that politicians are drunk on power and like to hand out benefits to those who don’t need it so the politicians can stay in power. The folks getting the benefits then rejoice that they no longer need to pay for things that they should be responsible for and figure it is now “free” since the government is ‘giving’ it to them, and then ultimately don’t those same people then expect it from society as their right!?!
We have a local representative by the name of Peter J Visclosky (pro-abortion, pro-expansion of social programs, pro-tax, etc) who is very good at bringing projects ‘home’ to our district. The local paper lauds his ability to bring us pork-barrel projects. The local unions support him because heis projects bring more jobs. Everyone knows it is pork-barrel but since they benefit from it they gladly accept it. It seems so wrong. So obviously wrong. Why should our district be benefiting above and beyond our needs? Why is it right that our district gets programs that are designed simply to expand government? Clearly our district is not the only one to get these benefits, the jobs of “good” politicians is to get money for their home districts. Are not “good” politicians simply thieves stealing from other communities and are not the eager constituents just whores taking the money? Seems to me we know the “right thing” to do but we choose to do what is in our financial interest. Seems to me most of the expansion of social programs is this type of whoring of the system.
Again, I am not talking about legitimate funding of the poor, disabled, etc. I am only talking about the expansion of legitimate programs to social classes that don’t ‘need’ the assistance. It seems very immoral to me.
- Status