Jump to content


What's with the ads?

Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

Rich getting richer, hard to get ahead, etc...


655 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#651 Frances

Frances

    Hive Mind Level 2 Worker: Nurse Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1831 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 02:56 PM

I agree that paying taxes is a responsibility. It is a responsibility for all able people. I used to actually call it a privilege ... until it got to the point of being a ~50% marginal tax rate when almost all the rest of my income was going for student loans. Then it did feel like a burden, I'm not gonna lie.

I feel that for those whose earnings justify paying little or no income tax, some contribution of services should be expected. I saw the comments above about having to choose between volunteering and working for pay, but in my experience, people who work full-time (or more) tend to volunteer a fair amount of time as well. So I don't think it's ridiculous or punitive to expect part-time workers, unemployed people, and students to contribute services in lieu of paying taxes.

I have a hard time understanding the hang up on everyone paying federal income taxes for their entire adult life. All taxes need to be looked at together before you conclude that a significant share of people are not paying taxes. You also need to look over the lifetime of taxpayers.

And then at minimum, you likely have to remove the very elderly, infirm, and disabled from any sort of volunteer requirement. And what about the student going to school full time and working full time? And then add in the cost and bureaucracy of administering such a program.I suppose we could institute some sort of token minimum federal income tax if it would make people feel better about everyone contributing for their entire adult life.

I know that when my husband went back to school for an advanced degree, and I was working full-time and homeschooling, we did not pay federal income taxes for four years. But we paid state, property, and payroll taxes. I would estimate between work and school, we were both easily putting in 80+ hour weeks, so I'm not sure where we would have fit in required volunteer hours. But now that we are paying state, federal, and payroll taxes at a significantly higher rate than before the career change and likely will for the rest of our lives, I think our four years of not paying will be way more than made up for.
  • creekland likes this

#652 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22518 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 03:04 PM

Quote:

But one still has to figure out what to do with those who can't manage money. Do we close our eyes and let them starve and live on the streets when they spend their money on something else? Perhaps we're ok with that for adult (only perhaps), but what about their kids?

I guess this is where I am not sure I am following you. Like I said, here as far as I know welfare is paid directly in cash (well, bank deposit). So how would it be different in this case? I mean most people would hopefully keep working so they just would have more money than now. And others who rely on this money alone/for the most part would be in the same position as now when receiving welfare (though possibly for a different amount/with less restrictions etc.). So I don't understand why you think there would be more of a problem than now (I am not disagreeing with you here but just think I am missing part of your argument and that's why I can't follow your train of thought)?

As to your question: As far as I know this isn't a major concern overall. Sure, some people on welfare are bad at managing money but there is still other assistance available (like food pantries). And of course where kids are concerned and they go hungry etc. there is CPS etc.

 

In the US benefits are separated by need.  One gets SNAP for food, Section 8 for housing, WIC for pregnant women and young kids - that one is super specific on what can be bought - way too specific IMO, LIHEAP for fuel oil, etc.  If one ditches all of those - as minimum income would do - there's no way to enforce food or housing being purchased, etc.

 

Many people would be fine - less hassle, rent still gets paid - but there are those I know personally and via school who simply do not pay for their needs first with what income they have.  They often end up evicted or at food banks or high in debt or similar.  Would those who currently have to spend $$ in certain areas keep spending their money in those areas, or join the ranks of those who don't know how to manage money?

 

I don't know the answer.  I could see it being worth a trial to see what happens.

 

(And yes, there are those who cheat the system we have, but I'm not talking about those folks.)

 

And the single working mom is also pitching in for those who don't earn a paycheck.

 

True, but totally different than what we are talking about.  Anyone who works (any gender, any age) pays something even if SS or unemployment.  In family situations where only one partner works, it's assumed if the family can afford that, that worker is earning enough to cover for two of them.  That was the same in the 40s as it is now.

 

There is actually even a marriage "penalty" for some folks when they marry and end up paying more in taxes than if they'd remained single.



#653 Twolittleboys

Twolittleboys

    Hive Mind Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 442 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 03:21 PM

In the US benefits are separated by need.  One gets SNAP for food, Section 8 for housing, WIC for pregnant women and young kids - that one is super specific on what can be bought - way too specific IMO, LIHEAP for fuel oil, etc.  If one ditches all of those - as minimum income would do - there's no way to enforce food or housing being purchased, etc.
 
Many people would be fine - less hassle, rent still gets paid - but there are those I know personally and via school who simply do not pay for their needs first with what income they have.  They often end up evicted or at food banks or high in debt or similar.  Would those who currently have to spend $$ in certain areas keep spending their money in those areas, or join the ranks of those who don't know how to manage money?
 
I don't know the answer.  I could see it being worth a trial to see what happens.
 
(And yes, there are those who cheat the system we have, but I'm not talking about those folks.)


I see. Actually, I kind of thought that was how it is/what is meant. So in that case, we basically do have at least partly a trial here (as there is little oversight) and I don't think it is as bad as you think it might turn out (if we assume the populations are fairly similar). At least I don't think there are any/many homeless children here (with homeless children I mean a) not runaway teenagers and b) don't count kids in shelters/homes) and I don't think anyone is starving. As I said, there is additional help that is more specific (e.g. food pantries) and health insurance can't be avoided even if one tried. Maybe I am just not aware of the problems as we do live in a fairly nice suburban / rural area.

My impression is that most people do try to be somewhat responsible and if the money for example runs out halfway through the month food pantries etc. would keep you from going hungry I assume? Of course there are situations in which this will not work (e.g. drug abuse) but in those cases I think children often have been taken out of the family anyway?

The above is my definite impression but I am going to talk to a friend of mine who does work in that area so maybe I will know better soon.

Looking at your description it just seems awfully complicated (with all the different components). Also it is rather based on an assumption that people needing help are less able to manage their money/have to be watched closely. Now, I am not saying that is always incorrect but still it seems a bit humiliating, doesn't it?

#654 Catwoman

Catwoman

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28406 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 03:22 PM

Intersting discussion. I have to pack and get on a plane. I'll check in later


Have a safe trip, Barb! :)

#655 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22518 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 03:51 PM

Looking at your description it just seems awfully complicated (with all the different components). Also it is rather based on an assumption that people needing help are less able to manage their money/have to be watched closely. Now, I am not saying that is always incorrect but still it seems a bit humiliating, doesn't it?

 

That's kind of the point causing folks to wonder if there's a better way - or not.  Without trials, one never knows which way is best.  Ideally, I'd like to see everyone get the benefit of the doubt to begin with (unless specific situations suggest otherwise) and be shifted to a Plan B later if needed.

 

But seeing how much envy of the poor and their benefits is on this thread... I don't know if changing things would ever actually happen in the US.  Then too, I'll admit I know folks who truly would abuse it if they could - taking advantage of "free money" for wants, not needs, then expecting charity for their needs.  I just don't know what percentage of the population those folks are.  Plan A, then Plan B if needed seems to be the best solution to suit both IMO.



#656 Scarlett

Scarlett

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18637 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 05:30 PM

Children of people on disability have their own funds and there is oversight to see that its not misused. We are still seeing poor choices..mainly acquisition of toys such as motorcycles,snowmobiles, and four wheelers and top ofthe line smart phones by older teens that decided to play heartily while the money is available, rather than buckle down and get the studying and job training done. At least they will have something to sell when they age out.



What kind of oversite? I have never heard of that.