lurkette

Maybe this belongs in Tilted Politics, but I'd like to get the opinions of people who don't normally venture into that particular lion's den:

If you have enough money for food, and you have a roof over your head, and you have transportation and health care; if, in essence, you have all of your basic needs met, (why) does it bother you if some of your tax money goes to help meet the needs of others?

Why does it seem to bother people less to give money to people who don't need it (e.g., through tax breaks to the wealthy, corporate welfare) than giving food and resources to people who haven't earned them? The first seems to me to be the greater outrage.

Why do people seem to resent anybody getting something for free?

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

sailor

I think a lot of it stems out of a sort of resentment that they had to work for their money while others are living off of the fruits of their labors. Also, a lot of the problem is that in many cases, welfare (which is what I assume your post is getting at) has been abused. It was meant to help people get back on their feet, and some people used it as their sole source of income, instead of using as it was intended. This gave it a bad name, and people became disillusioned with giving others money to live off of for an extended period of time.

__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
--Plato

johnnymysto

Well, I suppose it bothers me less to have tax breaks for the wealthy because they have busted their butts to get wealthy. I'm not talking about the Hilton sisters here. I'm talking about their father, Donald Trump, Warren Buffett, etc. Most wealthy people have worked their freakin' butts off to get wealthy and stay that way. On the other hand, people who get stuff for free tend to stay that way, too. Why lift a finger when I can get things for free? Now I have no problem helping people out who want to get better. If someone needs some money or food or a place to stay till they can get on their feet, come on over. But, have a plan in mind for getting better, or beat it. I don't think we should provide handouts for people who just want to freeload.

__________________
"I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request." - Capt. Barbossa

Kaos

Why does it bother people to pay taxes? Because most people do not know where their tax dollars are being spent.

And most of the time, the people who do know, do not agree with where the money is going.

moonstrucksoul

i guess what bothers me is the fact that America gives out Billions each year to other countries to help them out, and does little to help its own peoples, except make tax laws that benefit the few, the proud, the filthy rich. i know that we have all these programs to help out people in need. but here in the great state of Washington, our Governor made it even harder to file for and recieve unemployment this year, why ? to give a tax break to Boeing so they would quit whining about how much they pay out for all of the workers that got laid off.

__________________
no signature required

viejo gringo

When we have people right here at home that are living on dirt floors and no running water, and we send bookoo million bucks to some little ass wipe country, that is usually run by some one who is living high on the hog from the oil and diamonds from their land---YEA, I get a little pissed off...

(end of rant)..sorry

jujueye

I agree and disagree. First, for the most part, the US really does spend far too much on other countries. If I knew that all of my tax money would stay here and help my own country, it would be less of a sting. We have many poor, many ailing, and many people who live at a less than paycheck-to-paycheck level. Let's keep the cash here, like many European countries do.

Here is my disagreeal: there is no joke to the "the more you make, the more they take" rule. Past a certain income level, tax rates go into 40% or more. Yes, tax laws give them some benefits at their level, but it doesn't make up for a 40%+ tax rate. I hate arguing these points because I am no expert, but not everything we hear is true.

lurkette: p.s.: I have never ventured into tilted politics. Never.

skysooner

Tax breaks are just returning money to them that they made originally. A singificant part of the population does not pay taxes at all and instead gets money back from the government that they did not pay in. I don't particularly care how the government spends the money as long as they are trying to do something positive with it.

That being said, I do more than my fair share in giving to charities that reach people in need in my community.

johnnymysto

This is probably threadjacking (if it is, please delete/move this post, Mods), but what else could the govt. do "here at home" to help people? Are there not already programs to provide money, food, and shelter to dirt-poor people? WIC vouchers, food stamps, welfare, low-income housing, Salvation Army, unemployment pay, etc. Go here (http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html) if you want to take a look at the LONG list of programs the govt. has implemented.

Besides standing on the corner and handing out wads of 100-dollar bills, what do you think our leaders should do? Lower the interest rate to 0.01%? Regulate the price of all products? Allow people below a certain income to take what they want without paying?

__________________
"I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request." - Capt. Barbossa

lurkette

Johnnymysto, I'm not talking about changing the current situation to hand out more - I'm talking about people who seem to resent the existence of current aid programs. Bush gives a huge fucking tax cut to the people who need it least, and is looking at making cuts to programs that help those at the very bottom, such as the list you posted.

I also dispute that the wealthy are more deserving because they have worked harder. Ask a single mother working two jobs to break even if she works hard. Who says what someone's life and time are worth? If someone has made poor choices or has had certain disadvantages, does that mean their children should suffer the consequences because their parents didn't earn enough to feed them? Too bad? In terms of wealth, after a certain point it becomes easier to collect more wealth simply by being wealthy. Who gets first crack at IPOs? Who gets capital investments? It's not the level playing field we are led to believe. If someone has schmoozed and bargained and cheated their way to the top, does that make them more deserving? When the basic needs of some people are not met, why should we give more money to those who don't NEED it?

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Rubyee

I don't like it all that much. I know that my tax money is spent on things like my free police protection, free fire protection, roads, streetlights, and all kinds of other things I need. But, I don't have heath care, I just barely have a roof over my head, and if it weren't for other people helping me out, I would not have enough for food either. So that is why I would like to keep my money to myself. Or, let some of that money from other people come to me !

__________________
You don't know from fun.

dogzilla

It depends.

If someone is on disability and cannot support themselves. I have no problems with assistance. Depending on circumstances, single parents might also be deserving.

If someone is physically able to work but is simply unwilling to work or to support their family, then support is undeserved.

As a case in point, I have a son in law that thinks his purpose in life is to hunt, fish and sleep. Work is something he endures only when forced to. Supporting this lazy person does nothing except to encourage him to continue to be lazy.

jwells777

First, I think that this comment reflects the problem with people's view on welfare in general. Tax breaks to the wealthy and "corporate welfare" is not "giving" money to these individuals. Rather, it is not taking it from them in the first place. The question is better posed as, "why don't people feel it is okay to forcibly redistribute wealth to those who are in need?"

Many feel that this redistribution of wealth should be left to charity. After all, just because some one is rich does not mean they did not earn that money. If I have worked hard for my money by spending 10 years in post high-school education, I would be justifiably irritated to have to give up 40-50% of my income so some poor SOB who was out partying in those 10 years can live off of me.

I am not saying that I might not give to causes that I feel are worthy of donation, but I should at least be able to choose what I give my money to.

"Corporate Tax" is another issue entirely. The problem with corporate tax if you study economics is that corporations DO NOT pay tax. Period. Any cost of taxation will be passed directly to the consumer. This is not to say necessarily that certain corporate taxes are bad since it allows the government to target tax consumers of certain products while not taxing everyone in the country.

Finally, despite my general rant about this issue, redistribution of wealth is an unfortunate necessity to generate overall wealth in a society. Dollars chasing goods is I believe what it is called. You need a strong middle class which is willing to spend the majority of its income on goods. This allows everybody to get richer as dollars change hands. Otherwise, the divide between rich and poor grows. Eventually, the rich are so rich they can't spend enough money and the poor are so poor they can't spend anything. Then nobody gets richer.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy getting something for free as much as the next guy. I just realize that nothing is free, ever, and some poor SOB has paid the bill for my free lunch. Everybody should study a bit of economic theory as it is quite interesting and also generally useful in day to day living.

rockzilla

I don't mind it when my tax dollars go to social assistance programs. I see first-hand how badly welfare can be abused, welfare cheque day is the start of a massive three-day bender for everyone where I work (a homeless shelter). But I also know that for every one of those guys, there's at least an equal number of people who try thier hardest to squeeze every penny, but at the end of the month, the money always runs out. People will always abuse the system, it's not because the system's messed up, it's because people are.
What I don't like seeing are stories in newspapers about cabinet ministers racking up multiple $1300 dinners on the public's charge card, new solid oak desks for government executives and overstaffed government offices that can't get anything done.

sprocket

I would have to say I'm a bit resentful of the taxes I have to pay at times. Well, they aren't really taking much from me anymore, now that I quit a high paying computer job:/. Actually Id probably qualify for a good deal of government programs ATM.

I really woulndt mind it so much if I were confident that government were really effective in helping these people and efficient with the money it is given. But.. the government doesnt really have a good track record with that sort of thing. I mean really.. the government has proven itself damn near incompetent with the way it handles money.

Also, what is considered "rich" to our government is getting lower and lower on the income food chain, so they can justify higher taxes on lower incomes. So when you hear poloticians arguing with one another over giving tax breaks to the rich, often the middle and upper-middle class people are part of that group, mislabeled as "rich".

Id rather like to keep most of what uncle same takes from me and then choose where it goes and who it goes to help.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

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? If I want to buy a gold-plated, jewel-encrusted swimming pool and fill it with Stoli, that's my decision because it's my money. It requires no further justification than that.

I could just sit around and do nothing, but I made the choice to work instead. So I unquestionably deserve to reap the rewards of my decision rather than being punished for it. Just like those who choose to leech off of everybody else do not deserve to be rewarded with money stolen from productive people.

BTW, tax breaks don't "give" money to anyone. It only means the government steals less. I've said this before a thousand times and I'll say it again: It's no different than someone mugging you, stealing $100 from your wallet, and giving you 5 bucks back. It's still YOUR money, he just stole 5 bucks less of it.

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. Remember that Americans are the most generous people on earth when it comes to donating to charity. So much can be done on the local level without the blunt force of big confiscatory federal government.

Cynthetiq

I'll freely give out of my own pocket, but please don't put your hands in my pockets.

that's my opinion on it. Sometimes I feel like they are picking my pockets.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

ARTelevision

There are some serious socio-psychological aspects to what happens when we separate the act of earning one's way in the world and getting one's needs met. To name a few: we create an underclass with low self-esteem and low expectations. Government handouts have not been demonstrated as nearly the most optimal way to to meet human needs.

These are some thoughts on this subject. I'm not addressing the resentment aspect of the issue. I don't see it as very relevant to the actual problem. People have their own ways of responding to situations that don't work very well. We often respond in emotional ways to things.

__________________
create evolution

n0b

Because most people are greedy by nature and would rather use that money for themselves or close family members. I think it down to a sub-conscious desire to further ones genes above others.

sexymama

I'm on a rant today about taxes. The wonderful tax payers of Oregon have voted down a temporary sir tax that would pay for education, health care, and public safety. Now hundreds of inmates will be set free. Hundreds of people will go without the necessary health care and end up in the emergency room, causing the tax payer more in the long run. Worst of all, the quality of a child's education will decrease substantially. I already am teaching the largest group of kindergartners I have ever taught. Next year I will have to do the same job without an assistant. Big deal, some of you may say. It is! What happens when I have a special needs child that is not yet identified as special needs -- who screams all day, hits, kicks, and can't go to the restroom on his own and I have NO help. What happens when I have 30 students, none of whom get the individual attention they need to learn. What happens when a child falls between the cracks because I can't do it all, even after 18 years of teaching? Educators are seen as the "problem" or the "bad guy" in today's society. In truth, it is the people who want services but don't want to pay for them that are the "enemy!" It is not only people on welfare, or the unemployed who suffer because people don't want to pay taxes. It is our innocent children -- our future! *Sigh, end of rant.*

__________________
If you can go deeply into lovemaking, the ego disappears. That is the beauty of lovemaking, that it is another source of a glimpse of god

It's not about being perfect; it's about developing some skill at managing imperfection.

wilbjammin

It hurts me just as much. My future may be seriously screwed up from this too, I'm gonna graduation with a Master's in Education and there aren't going to be nearly as many jobs as there would have been. But it isn't just about me, its about feeling like our state doesn't care about us as a society, as a community... that's what hurts the most.

__________________
Innominate.

Mondak

Generally because only 1 or 2% of that tax money went where it was supposed to. The rest got filtered out along the way to pay off favors that candidates made while they were campaigning, off to special projects like making sure mining companies can strip mine for like $0.89 an acre and leave the land ruined since the laws have not changed since 1849, and most importantly, making sure that I have every decimal in place on my tax return so that they can get every last cent from me.

I far prefer to donate my time or money directly to whatever cause I think needs it. Way more efficient.

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

irseg

Well, yeah. Nothing wrong with favoring people who are close to you over others.

And it's not "greedy" to oppose confiscatory taxation to redistribute wealth any more than it's greedy to oppose someone breaking into your house and stealing your stuff. Either way your property that you rightfully earned is being stolen.

tisonlyi

For myself, I think it has a lot to do with the school of thought you were indoctrinated with as a child - and continue to be indoctrinated with by 'your' media.

Not much else.

For example: Scandinavians are generally selfless and proud of that. Americans are generally quite selfish and proud of that (though its dressed up differently).

Without conquering and cultural realignment, the vast majority of both americanas and scandinavas will probably stay along those lines through the generations.

My $0.02

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

krwlz

Its not that it helping others that bothers me, its the fact that the government conducts itself in such a grossly inefficiant way, that moochers are taking advantage of money that I BUSTED MY ASS FOR!

I work hard, and I dont make that much money, I dont need to volunteer some of it to people I dont even know.

Tax breaks arnt giving money. They earned it. Its just not stealing as much out of their paycheck.

pyraxis

The economy. No question that many low-income people work as hard if not harder than the wealthy. But that doesn't give the government (or anyone!) permission to violate basic property rights. We can't let the government make policies that place the interests of a certain group of people above the constitution. No matter how deserving that group of people may seem. And if policies like that already exist, all the more reason to debate them.

As much as I hate to defend the guy, we're a democracy, and Bush was voted in. There are plenty of people who agree with his tax cuts.

__________________
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." -Emerson

ARTelevision

"For example: Scandinavians are generally selfless and proud of that. Americans are generally quite selfish and proud of that (though its dressed up differently)."

There isn't any bias in there is there?

__________________
create evolution

sixate

When I work my ass off for what I do have I completely resent people who do nothing... People who take advantage of a system put in place to help those who have fallen on hard times... People who are just too damn lazy to help themselves.

For some reason, people in this country feel like shit should just be given to them. It makes me sick. Why should I give a dime to someone who doesn't want to work? I resent that my taxes go toward people who are too dumb to save, and too lazy to work.

What ever happened to expecting people to work? Why the hell should I care about someone who doesn't care about themselves? I won't.. And there's nothing that anyone can ever say to me that'll change my mind. I worked at The Salvation Army for years when I was younger. I volunteered many hours during the holidays because I had an aunt that worked at one. Year after mother fucking year it was the same losers coming in. 98% of the people who came in for help were there every single year. I got to know them all by name, and don't even get me started on how many of them dressed better than me and had better vehicles than my parents. My years working there made me realize that some people are just worthless. I'm supposed to feel sorry for people like that? Nah, no chance in hell. People who can't get up on their own feet and take care of themselves won't get any sympathy from me. I could care less.

I'll never take anyone's handouts, and I won't give any. If I ever fall on hard times... I'll get up on my own, and that's because I'm not a lazy motherfucker.

On a side note... Why the hell would our government want to make trips to the moon when we could spend that money on some type of health care system? Health care costs are outrageous. Fuck the moon.

irseg

Excellent rant sixate, although I find it somewhat puzzling that you end it by saying that you think we should all be responsible for funding each others' health care costs.

I know what it's like to be poor and work your ass off. Been there done that. But I never asked for a dime from anybody. I was eligible for all kinds of assistance, in fact I got notices in the mail from the government offering to use other peoples' money to pay my heating bill. Fuck that, it's not anyone else's responsibility but mine. I'd rather pay it on my own and be out of money every month than be a welfare leech.

I have no respect for people who leech off society. I'd much rather buy a new TV or something than feed someone who won't even assume the responsibility to take care of themselves.

I'd love it if you could opt out of social welfare programs. You agree that you can never go on welfare; you don't pay the tax. It'd work kind of like insurance.

sixate

I don't, but it seems more logical to waste the money on useless people than blasting it into the sky for no reason. There's no need to waste money to go to the moon.

illesturban

Hey, I hate that I have to pre-pay for gas just because there are people out there who pump-n-run, but that's what I gotta do. I'm just saying, there are going to be things the masses have to suffer from because of the errors or misfortunes of a few people. I don't know, I am glad there are programs like welfare and the like out there for people who REALLY can do very little for themselves. While there are people who abuse the system, I believe it is great for those who have no way out.

Mondak

Yeah - somebody should GIVE me healthcare. I want it free. While I agree with everything else you said (and usually what you say in general) you seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Follow you own advice: Work and save for your healthcare and you won't need it to be free. How about a catastrofic care insurance policy that covers big shit (like cancer or something) that is darn cheap and a tax free medical savings account that you can only use for medical expenses. It comes right out of your pay similar to what you are playing for health care today out of your pay.

I bet you get better care for it since it is your money directly paying for what is important to you. Otherwise you have to pay for your's and everyone else's medical care ultimatly in your taxes after your money filters through the "system" and you get .25 cents on the $100 after it comes out the other side. Think about this - are you more or less "sick" than the average person? If the answer is less then you WILL pay more for your same healthcare even if we don't take into account the efficencies of government.

As for the moon - dream big. Who knows what we find. The way it was pitched, NASA budget has been refocused on the moon so instead of massive increases in the NASA buget for the moon, more money is spent on the moon and way less is spent on things like the international space station. The cost of national healthcare would be massivly more than something like the moon and really cannot be compared.

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

Randerolf

Money is taken from Randerolf in taxes. He lives in a small house, helping his Grandma (I LOVE YOU GRANDMA ).

Money take a trip to Washington.

Money is filtered through bureacracy; from Randerolf taxes, bureacrats are paid, their aids are paid, utilities are paid, office sulpies are bought.

Washington deems that my Grandma needs help and a bureaucrat cut her a check from the left over of my taxes.

Grandma gets check in mail from a sterile intitution called Washington.

-or-

Grandma asks for some money.

Money is given by Randy to Grandma with none of it eroded away in the tranaction.

Grandma gives Randy a hug.


Central planning doesn't work. This is simplified, but this is an example of how so much money is lost, never to reach the people who need it, due to bureacracy and regulations.

John Stossel had a good series on how regulations hurt charities.

irseg

Interesting how in the political compass thread, nearly everyone on this forum was pretty far to the left economically. But most of the people in this thread are center-right when it comes to money coming out of their own pockets to fund welfare programs.

"Feed the hungry! Homes for the homeless! Free health care for all! ... Oh shit, *I* have to help pay for that?!"

taliendo

If you don't like the way that this country is run, then you should devise a plan to change it - supposedly it was made to evolve. If you don't like paying taxes, then don't. But in the mean time, make no mistake about it, you're paying for your freedom.

And to answer the original question, yes. I do think that I have enough, an abundance even. Thanks.

__________________
-LIFE IS ABSURD-

Mehoni

I don't know how true that statement is, but most people here in Sweden don't complain about paying taxes. Our income tax is between 30%-50% (depends on how much you earn).

I'm all for high taxes since the state supplies everyone with the basics (free education, subsidied health care/dental work and much more)...

The Golden Rule in Sweden is "Do not think you're better than anybody else".

__________________
There seem to be countless rituals and cultural beliefs designed to alleviate their fear of a simple biological truth - all organisms eventually perish.

SecretMethod70

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.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Milopost

The way i think about it is that it's far too complex to break it down into:
- Give money to people who really need it
or
- Give money to people who dont necessarily need it, but have earned it

I guess, for example:
If the gov't gave out a tax break to say, a generic large company, that company could then have the available to funds for capital investment. Following an investment for expansion, or for extra plant or equipment, the company could then employ say, an extra 100 previously unemployed citizens, possibly sustaining these new workers onto positive paths of 'improvment' (word used for lack of a better at the present mo). Further, the tax break used for investment would create demand in associated industries, such as building and machine producing companies which supplied our original generic company.

The possible alternative would be to fund welfare for these 100 unemployed citizens. And say after 3 months or so, when the cost to the gov't equals what was paid out in the tax break, you might have 5 or so citizens (5%), who may have broken out of the poverty cycle.


So, the nice and simple answer of just giving money to people who really need it becomes not as clear cut. You could be better helping those people by ensuring that the money goes into investment in businesses. It's clear that a gov't in a market economy would prefer the first option, and i think that is why the gov't gives tax breaks for certain reasons (eg. research and development. I'm not an American so I don't know the exact motives or details of the American gov't's tax laws, but i think it should be similar to Australia's).

However, it should be noted that even success in the first option is dependent on the successful workings of the mechanisms of the market economy.
I guess you might have to ask yourself: "Do you trust capitalism?"