Taxes... I want your opinions.

Can anyone explain to me why many liberals think the wealthy aren't paying their fair share of taxes?  If you can support it with statistics, I'd much appreciate it.

Also...
1)  How will increasing Federal Income Tax help?  Would you increase it across the board or just for higher income earners?
2)  How will increasing taxes paid by large corporations help?  Keep in mind, corporation implies that it is owned by the people... taxes on corporations ultimately reduce their profits which in turn reduces value of the peoples' ownership in that company.
3)  What should be done with FICA (social security)?  Increase?  Leave the same?  Abolish it?

this is another argument i get really tired of. 'they should have planned better.' our government doesn't 'plan better', our corporations don't 'plan better', our whole society is crisis-driven - kind of ludicrous to assume individuals, for the most part, will do better.

I wonder, then, why should we rely on the government when they don't plan any better either? The governement isn't some magical entity that's the solutions to all of life problems. It doesn't make the food we eat, or gas to fuel our cars, or our cars themselves. A goevernment's purpose, as I see it, is to protect people from those who would take our fruits of production by force.

Original Post by smartjock256:

this is another argument i get really tired of. 'they should have planned better.' our government doesn't 'plan better', our corporations don't 'plan better', our whole society is crisis-driven - kind of ludicrous to assume individuals, for the most part, will do better.

I wonder, then, why should we rely on the government when they don't plan any better either? The governement isn't some magical entity that's the solutions to all of life problems. It doesn't make the food we eat, or gas to fuel our cars, or our cars themselves. A goevernment's purpose, as I see it, is to protect people from those who would take our fruits of production by force.

 Bravo. (why didnt I think of that reply??)

you're too busy trying to dodge the snipes, Lippy :)

that's where we differ jock  - the  federal government started with 2 jobs - the post office and roads...

no one is arguing that the government should become the 'nanny state' that right wingers believe it to be, however, we have a responsibility as a nation to care for our citizens that are powerless to care for themselves.

Original Post by smartjock256:

this is another argument i get really tired of. 'they should have planned better.' our government doesn't 'plan better', our corporations don't 'plan better', our whole society is crisis-driven - kind of ludicrous to assume individuals, for the most part, will do better.

I wonder, then, why should we rely on the government when they don't plan any better either? The governement isn't some magical entity that's the solutions to all of life problems. It doesn't make the food we eat, or gas to fuel our cars, or our cars themselves. A goevernment's purpose, as I see it, is to protect people from those who would take our fruits of production by force.

We rely on the government when our plans fail, there are plenty of people who save plenty, and have health insurance, and still lose everything due to a medical emergency.

The government provides a saftey-net for when plans fail.  If you'd prefer a country where the government doesn't provide a saftey net, there are plenty of 3rd world countries you can move to (though not really any developed countries, I wonder why that is). 

another good point FS.

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

Original Post by kathygator:

the truth is this a society where if people are left to 'donate to charities', rather than be taxed, people will die of starvation. 

 a fair number of "conservatives" think that this is what should happen

survival of the fittest for societies - social darwinism

let the poor, disabled and otherwise disadvanteged people perish and stop using up resources that other people can use more profitably; if only the government would stop helping them survive

 I am a consevative and never once have I come across ONE person who believes that...that is nuts!

Since when did Americans start thinking they were entitled to a safety net in the first place?  Did the colonists have a safety net?  I just don't understand when everyone developed this theory that being an American means you are entitled to having whatever you want.  WORK FOR IT AND EARN YOUR KEEP.  I'm gonna work my ass off for myself, my family, and the ones I love.  I expect the rest of you to do the same for yourselves and not use the government to take my paycheck away.

And the people who CAN'T work for it?

we are in a phase right now where it is more paycheck to paycheck... We have had to all but stop savings...am I worried...no, we will work and sacrifice and do what we have to do...we are paying the price for pursuing a dream...we counted the cost and if we have to work 5 more years...so be it.  I say this to show that I am NOT in the upper 1%...or 5% even...

 I don't expect to live off SS...do I mind welfare type programs...not in the short term...anyone can need some help now and then, but there is SO much abuse in the system...so many getting a free ride that it makes you want to get rid of the entire thing and start over.  No, I don't have the answer, but throwing more money at the problem isn't it either.!

Missing the point. No one is saying don't work for yourself. But there has to be a system to help people survive layoff, globalization, corrupted food chain, crime, natural disaster.

And yes the colonists did have a safety net - before, during and after the Revolutionary war. Specifically: England, France and The Netherlands, then France again...then England again...then France and England...you get the point. 

edit: response to DCY, not Kae 

Original Post by yachtracer1977:

And the people who CAN'T work for it?

 Examples please.

Original Post by yachtracer1977:

And the people who CAN'T work for it?

 clearly they should be deported.  ;)

We've given examples already, dear. 

I have met MANY people who declare that they can't work, but are more able to work then I am...yet here I am...(writing on here while AT work...ummm) I will admit, I have a very hard time seeing the abuse of the system that should help but can't because of the mooches.  out of the people I know "on the systems" less then half should be.

edited to say...and those aree trying to get off as soon as they can! 

Original Post by yachtracer1977:

We've given examples already, dear. 

 single mothers and single men who are on disability if I remember correctly?

I know people who are collecting a disability check for there son who has ADHD...he is perfectly functionable and goes to normal classes...I can see maybe state paid counslor, but why should she get 600 a month in cash??????

Original Post by kae03:

I know people who are collecting a disability check for there son who has ADHD...he is perfectly functionable and goes to normal classes...I can see maybe state paid counslor, but why should she get 600 a month in cash??????

 RUFKM? RITALIN DOESN'T COST THAT MUCH.

Look. I am 46 years old. I have no college degree-great grades, no money and more importantly, no one to tell me I could find a way to do it anyway.

I married young, and worked as an administrative assistant. Raised two fine boys. My husband and I gave them a better life than we had. One in college -one in Law school.

We had a 401k through my husband's work. Because of 'the people's' corporate culture of underpaying women, cutting back on benefits and freezing wages, his was the only retirement plan we had.

He died last year. I work, I pay my bills, I take care of myself and my family - I have very little left over on which to retire. I will be able to rely on my kids to a certain extent, but will not burden them if I can help it.

So when I'm 70 and I serve you your dinner DCY and or Lippy - you better tip like you mean it.

Original Post by kathygator:


And yes the colonists did have a safety net - before, during and after the Revolutionary war. Specifically: England, France and The Netherlands, then France again...then England again...then France and England...you get the point. 

England was NOT a safety net prior to the revolution.  Rather, England was taking advantage of the colonies economically and giving little in return.  Many colonists who supported the revolution were on a death list if they were ever caught.  France gave little support during the revolution until the end... they were no safety net.  Had the colonies lost the war, you would not have seen France protecting colonists whom England deemed outlaw traitors.

Original Post by kathygator:

Look. I am 46 years old. I have no college degree-great grades, no money and more importantly, no one to tell me I could find a way to do it anyway.

I married young, and worked as an administrative assistant. Raised two fine boys. My husband and I gave them a better life than we had. One in college -one in Law school.

We had a 401k through my husband's work. Because of 'the people's' corporate culture of underpaying women, cutting back on benefits and freezing wages, his was the only retirement plan we had.

He died last year. I work, I pay my bills, I take care of myself and my family - I have very little left over on which to retire. I will be able to rely on my kids to a certain extent, but will not burden them if I can help it.

So when I'm 70 and I serve you your dinner DCY and or Lippy - you better tip like you mean it.

 I swear on everything holy I would. 

I would really feel for ya too. <-------surprised?