[jthomas1600]

Here's an interesting article from the AP. The Facts Almost half of us pay zero income tax. Some because they are shrewd and hire good accountants, a lot because they just don't make enough money. Even if you're only making $30,000 could you at least pay $10 a month? And I'm not a big fan of people getting more back than they paid. If they're that poor, allow them to apply and see if the qualify for other federal programs, I don't like tax season to be a federal giveaway. Anybody else have any thoughts on this?

[tlj009]

What if everyone paid a little?
Here's an interesting article from the AP. The Facts Almost half of us pay zero income tax. Some because they are shrewd and hire good accountants, a lot because they just don't make enough money. Even if you're only making $30,000 could you at least pay $10 a month?

I don't think that there should be an income tax at all.

And I'm not a big fan of people getting more back than they paid.

You are right.

If they're that poor, allow them to apply and see if the qualify for other federal programs, I don't like tax season to be a federal giveaway.

Or they can go to charities. I actually prefer charities over government programs.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Or they can go to charities. I actually prefer charities over government programs.

If charities worked, we wouldn't have made all these government programs to help those who were not getting help.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Even if you're only making $30,000 could you at least pay $10 a month?

Assuming that all 47% paid $10 (and I wonder what percentage of that 47% are, for example, children), that would be $1,500 million in a $1,500,000 million federal budget (0.1%).

[tlj009]

If charities worked, we wouldn't have made all these government programs to help those who were not getting help.

I don't know of a single person that has been turned away from a Church when they asked for food, or even a place to stay. I have seen (Katrina is a great example) people insisting that they have a right to eat catered food rather than the canned stuff that they were given. I have seen people given a $10.00/hr (more than the regular employees) job and claim that you couldn't fire them even though they showed up 2 hours late and wouldn't work when they did show up. F.D.R. made this statement:

"Continued dependence induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

I think that he was pretty much right. It isn't the governments responsibility. It is societies. When the government forms welfare programs, those benefits become a "right". When it is charity, you ask for it with your hat in your hand.

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Assuming that all 47% paid $10 (and I wonder what percentage of that 47% are, for example, children), that would be $1,500 million in a $1,500,000 million federal budget (0.1%).

It said "US households" so I'm assuming it's talking about potential tax payers and not children. And something is better than nothing. Maybe some of that 47% pays $10 a month, maybe some pay $50 a month. I don't think there is one big answer to our federal budget problems, so I don't think "it would only be X amount" is a reason not to consider an idea. I'm also for closing loopholes for the wealthy. I once worked for a guy that paid less taxes than any of his employees. He took a small management salary from the company each year and paid taxes on that. He let the company buy his truck, pay for his travel, and many other personal things. Closing those loopholes would not fix the budget, but I still say lets do it.

[beanbag]

I think it would be a better idea than what's going on now. also, if people who make very little were to pay, it would be for discipline--the principle of the matter, not the recovery of funds. nothing in this country is free; someone has to pay the price, and even if you're below the poverty line, you should still contribute to your own subsistence. (and I think I have a right to say this, as I am voluntarily spending this year and quite possibly the next under the poverty line, so I do have first-hand experience. I actually don't even qualify to pay taxes, but I'm not getting anything back, either.)

I am also all about massive social reform. welfare programs are ridiculous. I'm on foodstamps, and I can buy just about anything, from virgin margarita mix to premade sushi. my coworkers and I were talking about this last month--I have heard (which means I have no specific citations, but I'm sure ya'll have heard this too) that research is showing a definite correlation between income level and obesity. maybe that's because junk food is cheap and convenient. foodstamps buy junk food. maybe if junk food was put on the block list, if people could only buy fresh fruit and veggies, fresh meats and poultries, and dairy products, whole breads and grains, and bulk items like beans, then maybe the obesity level would go down.

if people knew how to cook and eat correctly, they could stretch a $200/month budget for groceries. this is what I am given as a single person, and if I were to stop spending on extras (like infused olive oil. so random and expensive, but hey! foodstamps covers it.) I'd probably only spend $60 or so a month. maybe $80, depending on the price of fruit.

I think FDR's quote is very true. when in line at the grocery store, I am ashamed of being on foodstamps, even though I technically make no money and would have a tough time paying my bills without them, and I think living on government money year by year really does kill a person's spirit. having to pay something, even $10/month, might restore some dignity and might enable people to pull themselves up out of poverty. also, I think it would help to lessen the sense of "us and you" that happens between the wealthier classes and the poorer classes. I used to be an us, and now I am a you, simply by virtue of where I live and the fact that I'm on foodstamps and don't make enough to be taxed. I probably couldn't set aside $200/month for groceries (not that I'd use it) but I could certainly set aside $10/month for taxes. then I wouldn't feel like I was mooching off the government so much, although to perfectly honest I am an atypical case because I come from an upper middle class family so really, my parents' taxes are supporting me right now.

anyways, I don't want to turn this into a novel or derail the thread, but I have a whole lot more to say about taxes and welfare and poverty, so if you're interested, feel free to pm me or stop by my journal.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I don't know of a single person that has been turned away from a Church when they asked for food, or even a place to stay. I have seen (Katrina is a great example) people insisting that they have a right to eat catered food rather than the canned stuff that they were given.

So no one in Katrina slept outside, went to the bathroom in a hallway, and lacked a single meal or water?

I have seen people given a $10.00/hr (more than the regular employees) job and claim that you couldn't fire them even though they showed up 2 hours late and wouldn't work when they did show up. F.D.R. made this statement:

"Continued dependence induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

I think that he was pretty much right. It isn't the governments responsibility. It is societies. When the government forms welfare programs, those benefits become a "right". When it is charity, you ask for it with your hat in your hand.

So, since no church ever turned anyone away: what are you going to do about "continued dependance" on charities? It sounds all nice, but when you actually examine it, you find that you are cherry picking contrart antecdotes.

You can't have it both ways. If providing is bad, then charities providing is bad.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by beanbag

I am voluntarily spending this year and quite possibly the next under the poverty line, so I do have first-hand experience. I actually don't even qualify to pay taxes, but I'm not getting anything back, either.)

I am also all about massive social reform. welfare programs are ridiculous. I'm on foodstamps,

Of course you are getting something back: you are getting foodstamps.

research is showing a definite correlation between income level and obesity. maybe that's because junk food is cheap and convenient. foodstamps buy junk food. maybe if junk food was put on the block list, if people could only buy fresh fruit and veggies, fresh meats and poultries, and dairy products, whole breads and grains, and bulk items like beans, then maybe the obesity level would go down.

There are also correlations between income and height, and income and attractiveness, and income and gender.

I think FDR's quote is very true. when in line at the grocery store, I am ashamed of being on foodstamps, even though I technically make no money and would have a tough time paying my bills without them, and I think living on government money year by year really does kill a person's spirit. having to pay something, even $10/month, might restore some dignity and might enable people to pull themselves up out of poverty.

So donate $10 a month to charity. Consider it your duty. Problem solved.

It seems you want the government to change its policy to solve something you could solve yourself.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

It said "US households" so I'm assuming it's talking about potential tax payers and not children. And something is better than nothing. Maybe some of that 47% pays $10 a month, maybe some pay $50 a month. I don't think there is one big answer to our federal budget problems, so I don't think "it would only be X amount" is a reason not to consider an idea.

OK. But here is. What is gained?

I'm also for closing loopholes for the wealthy. I once worked for a guy that paid less taxes than any of his employees. He took a small management salary from the company each year and paid taxes on that. He let the company buy his truck, pay for his travel, and many other personal things. Closing those loopholes would not fix the budget, but I still say lets do it.

I agree with you: though I don't know if you understand the logic behind those loopholes (or how some cannot realistically be closed).

[beanbag]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Of course you are getting something back: you are getting foodstamps.

I don't get foodstamps because I pay taxes. I get foodstamps because I can't pay taxes. maybe I'm dumb, but that seems like something totally different to me.

There are also correlations between income and height, and income and attractiveness, and income and gender.

that doesn't make the correlation between income and obesity not true. it also means that correlations between income and height/attractiveness/gender are evidence of personal bias when it comes to hiring and/or promoting. people are people. I don't see how that is a counter-argument.

So donate $10 a month to charity. Consider it your duty. Problem solved.

that's not the point. and honestly, you're coming across as rather snide. have you ever supported yourself on minimum wages or below? living with your parents and buying your own stuff as a teen doesn't count. I think I make...gosh, $5 an hour, or a little less. have you ever paid rent and utility bills and insurance (thankfully as a government slave I do get insurance, however crappy it is.) and car payments on $5 an hour? have you ever lived in a rent-controlled community where all of your neighbors make about the same, or less if they're living on disability?

if not, don't think that donating money to charity is going to solve the problem. me, I have other options. I could move back in with my parents and return to the upper middle class bracket. I could go off foodstamps. I could try to find a job that pays a hell of a lot more than $5 an hour. my neighbors, though...they don't have that option. many of them have given in to desperation, and I can see it in them. it's also true of the kids I work with, many of whom are on TANF support and foodstamps, and their parents receive SSI or disability. they've told me there's no way they can afford to go to college even for two years, so they have to graduate from high school (if even that) and get a job working minimum wage, with little to no hope of ever completing a two-year degree, much less a four-year degree and breaking out of the cycle they're in.

so again. if you think that my donating $10 a month to charity solves the problem because it eases my conscience, then you're wrong.

It seems you want the government to change its policy to solve something you could solve yourself.

I can single-handedly reform welfare by donating to charity instead of paying taxes? or did you mean something else?

my apologies if I sound unduly bitter, but I see these problems day in and day out. how do you propose I solve this policy issue on my own, short of going into government and becoming an elected official and changing it, again, via government?

[bravesfan007]

I'm all for a national lottery. Therefore, we all pay some, a few just get some bucks back.

[The wirerat]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So no one in Katrina slept outside, went to the bathroom in a hallway, and lacked a single meal or water?

I was deployed to the Astrodome in Houston, TX after Katrina as part of a relief team to assist with logistics, medical, and security support. The people were awful. Donations of food, blankets, water, gatorade, cell phones, ect. poured in by the hundreds. And still people complained that the food should be better, the water should be cold, that they wanted computers, laptops, free hotel rooms, ect. Verizon came and set up six trailers outside with free public phones so people could make calls and they still complained.
I don't think tlj009 is saying no one had to sleep outside or anything like that, but for the most part these people were selfish and only wanted more and better.
The people I was most blessed by in those two weeks, were those who were grateful just to have their families. Today's society is all about "more, more, more" and "better, bigger, faster" and of course they want it for free, and without having to work. Its simple human laziness I think we are addressing here.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So no one in Katrina slept outside, went to the bathroom in a hallway, and lacked a single meal or water?

But do you think that if private organizations had the same funds that the government had, that they would of helped everyone more efficiently? I believe the number was around $400,000 PER person!

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by normajean777

But do you think that if private organizations had the same funds that the government had, that they would of helped everyone more efficiently? I believe the number was around $400,000 PER person!

no, I don't. Because let's say we decide to spend $100 million to help the economy. We could give it to business and they will spend some of it. But not all of it. Some of it will be saved or some of it will be given to the C level execs in forms of bonuses. But not all of that $100mm will enter the economy. Where as the gov't will spend every penny of it in the form of new roads, new schools, new industrial buildings, etc.