Quote:
Originally posted by irseg
To which I respond: Who the hell are you do decide what my needs are, when I have enough money, and how any surplus of my money should be spent?
BTW, tax breaks don't "give" money to anyone. It only means the government steals less.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by eribrav
Really lurkette, this is all about deciding government's role in this country. I like to believe that the Constitution still has some relevance in that regard. It explicitly DOES NOT give government confiscatory powers, whether some citizens wish it was that way or not. Our federal government needs to secure our borders and provide for the national defense. They don't need to be in the wealth redistribution business. If you think supporting those less fortunate is important then you should donate your money to charities and organizations that further that cause.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cynthetiq
I'll freely give out of my own pocket, but please don't put your hands in my pockets.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Randerolf
John Stossel had a good series on how regulations hurt charities.
|
Pretty much sums up most of what I'd say here.
Income tax isn't even constitutional. (Yes, I'm one of "those people.")
I want it to be clear that I don't believe in over-generalizing and saying that people who use welfare, etc are free-loaders and I don't think that most people who use welfare or any other similar government programs are bad people or undeserving of the help.
What it all comes down to is individual rights. People become wealthy by working very hard and/or doing things that someone else values so much (and that others cannot do equally as well) that they think it's worth however much they're paying said wealthy person. Point is, the wealthy work for their money. They've earned it - be it through intelligent entrepreneurship, or savvy use of skills to pander towards what people want - and it is THEIR money.
It is a wonderful and noble thing to wish to help those in need, and everyone should do so morally and ethically IMO, but once you try to be like Robin Hood, you've passed the moral and ethical boundaries. It is not right to "take from the rich and give to the poor." It is not ethical to FORCE someone to be ethical. It is not moral to assume the right to choose where someone else's money goes for them - no matter how much you think they may or may not deserve or need that money. Furthermore, it is downright hypocritical to argue for equal rights and for the government to not mandate morality and for the government to respect the rights of someone to do as they please in many instances (gay marriages, abortion, etc) and then argue that the government, or you, or ANYONE has the right to tell someone ELSE where THEIR money should go.
Of course, I suppose that's why I'm decidedly centrist. Economically and civil rights-wise, I am on very different sides of the spectrum, because they are flat out more consistant.
EDIT: And just to show that I don't recognize a need for change, while the government should NOT forcibly take anyone's money for welfare programs and such, there SHOULD be a section on all tax forms to willingly give any amount of money specifically towards those programs.