Let Lower Income "Pay Their Fair Share"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your stereotypical assumptions are rather ridiculous.

Guess who receives tax-funded assistance?

Pretty much everyone. Did you receive a pell grant or financial aid for college? That's basically welfare.

You know who else receives assistance?

People with disabilities---mental and physical.
(Damn those lazy, greedy people with disabilities!)

You know who else?
The elderly.
(Damn those greedy little old ladies!)

You know who else? Kids transitioning from the child welfare system.
(Damn those kids!)

I could go on, but why bother?

I encourage you to make friends with someone who works at your local housing authority so you can learn about the critical services they provide to our vulnerable neighbors.

I encourage you to research the meals on wheels programs that fill the gap for vulnerable people who need food.

I can't imagine having the time or energy to waste on obsessing over "who's getting a free ride." It's befuddling. A normal, happy person would be grateful for what he has, and would be similarly grateful to the government and community providers for assisting vulnerable people.

I for one do not want to live in a community where vulnerable people are left to fend for themselves.

Sorry, sister, but you cannot lump Meals on Wheels in with the other giveaway programs. I have been working with Meals on Wheels and most people pay for the food, even those with very low incomes. As someone else pointed out, if one pays for something it is more worthwhile to the recipient, and we want people to eat the food delivered to them. IMHO, Meals on Wheels is a model for the type of assistance government should provide. It is amazing to watch a group of people show up, deliver the food, and get the job done in a very low tech way and with virtually no overhead or expense from the band of mostly volunteers who get the work done.

And I do know people who work at the local housing authority and they understand the ripoffs that are perpetrated on the local governments everyday but they are powerless to do anything about it. For example, go to the Larkspur Apartments off Cleveland Street and Lee Highway in Arlington and you will see numerous taxi cabs with DC registrations parked in the lot. These residents are mostly emigres and exported from DC because the taxi cabs won't pay them enough to get market rate housing. Look at some of the other subsidized housing in Arlington -- Woodland Hills is prime. They are filled with first generation emigres who children impoverished them so that they would not have to pay for their care.

So while you dance around and beat your chest to your do gooder song, recognize that all is not what you want it to be. But then, I suppose, you have never worked in any of the programs you described. Only tut tut at them from afar.

Actually, I've worked in the homeless advocacy/provider arena for nearly two decades.

Feel free to continue to base your judgment on license plates and accents. I'll base my judgment on nearly twenty years on the front lines.

Question: why channel your frustration towards those less fortunate? Why not support candidates who believe the wealthy should pay higher taxes? Befuddling.

[Anonymous]

We should not set up a system in which someone who works is forced to have worse medical care than someone who doesn't work. People don't value free, limitless things, they waste them. Have none of you noticed the difference between kids spending their parents' money versus them spending their own money? The difference between how renters take care of a property versus owners taking care of their own homes? For this to work, I agree with a pp, we need everyone to have skin in the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your stereotypical assumptions are rather ridiculous.

Guess who receives tax-funded assistance?

Pretty much everyone. Did you receive a pell grant or financial aid for college? That's basically welfare.

You know who else receives assistance?

People with disabilities---mental and physical.
(Damn those lazy, greedy people with disabilities!)

You know who else?
The elderly.
(Damn those greedy little old ladies!)

You know who else? Kids transitioning from the child welfare system.
(Damn those kids!)

I could go on, but why bother?

I encourage you to make friends with someone who works at your local housing authority so you can learn about the critical services they provide to our vulnerable neighbors.

I encourage you to research the meals on wheels programs that fill the gap for vulnerable people who need food.

I can't imagine having the time or energy to waste on obsessing over "who's getting a free ride." It's befuddling. A normal, happy person would be grateful for what he has, and would be similarly grateful to the government and community providers for assisting vulnerable people.

I for one do not want to live in a community where vulnerable people are left to fend for themselves.

Sorry, sister, but you cannot lump Meals on Wheels in with the other giveaway programs. I have been working with Meals on Wheels and most people pay for the food, even those with very low incomes. As someone else pointed out, if one pays for something it is more worthwhile to the recipient, and we want people to eat the food delivered to them. IMHO, Meals on Wheels is a model for the type of assistance government should provide. It is amazing to watch a group of people show up, deliver the food, and get the job done in a very low tech way and with virtually no overhead or expense from the band of mostly volunteers who get the work done.

And I do know people who work at the local housing authority and they understand the ripoffs that are perpetrated on the local governments everyday but they are powerless to do anything about it. For example, go to the Larkspur Apartments off Cleveland Street and Lee Highway in Arlington and you will see numerous taxi cabs with DC registrations parked in the lot. These residents are mostly emigres and exported from DC because the taxi cabs won't pay them enough to get market rate housing. Look at some of the other subsidized housing in Arlington -- Woodland Hills is prime. They are filled with first generation emigres who children impoverished them so that they would not have to pay for their care.

So while you dance around and beat your chest to your do gooder song, recognize that all is not what you want it to be. But then, I suppose, you have never worked in any of the programs you described. Only tut tut at them from afar.

Actually, I've worked in the homeless advocacy/provider arena for nearly two decades.

Feel free to continue to base your judgment on license plates and accents. I'll base my judgment on nearly twenty years on the front lines.

Question: why channel your frustration towards those less fortunate? Why not support candidates who believe the wealthy should pay higher taxes? Befuddling.[/quot

Not frustrated at all. Simply stating facts. I am befuddled that you are not aware of these abuses after 20 years of homeless advocacy. I have no frustration toward who you choose to call the "less fortunate" and I call people. The abuses are not caused by people but by the programs for which you are advocating. See it is like taxes. If the tax abuses are stopped, there are more tax funds available. If the abuses are stopped in the programs for which you advocate, there is more housing for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is saying we shouldn't care for less fortunate folks. The question is, when you yourself are struggling to make ends meet and pay for health care, it is tough to be required to pay more to subsidie others. We live on one income. I have a chronic disease. Medication, specialists appointments really add up and insurance costs are higher every year. It's becoming a real hardship to afford medical care.

The middle class is not allowed to complain I guess.

I'm the OP, and we are in the same boat. I really do think that once people get to a comfortable lifestyle, they don't understand how it feels when you have to "go without" (particularly medical care) while at the same time being required to help fund the very necessary care you yourself can't afford to others. Like you said, nobody is suggesting we throw poor people in the street. But at what point is it unreasonable to ask middle class people to give up medical treatments they need to help provide those very same treatments to poorer people?

Also, what you say - facetiously - that the middle class isn't allowed to complain is part of this, and I've touched on it. There is a LOT of defense and sympathy for the lower class getting full medical care without so much as a $10 co-pay, and very little to those struggling in the middle class to pay exorbitant insurance premiums and medical bills. In fact, we are often criticized that we need to "do better for ourselves" - a comment that would be met with anger if it were ever suggested to the poorer people.

[Anonymous]

OP, you still haven't answered the question of how making the poor pay an extra $8-40+ per month for income tax/insurance/doctor appointments is going to improve YOUR life.

No platitudes about everyone have skin in the game. I want to know how your own financial situation will improve by making a struggling single mother choose between paying rent and paying the electricity bill.

Specifics, please. Thanks for answering.

[Anonymous]

Something that I think hasn't been talked about enough is that the highly paid workers in a company are making much more than the lower level workers. The discrepancy is higher here than most other countries. Do you ever ask yourself why these higher income people make so much? It's often that they just save the money for themselves. There is no way anyone is working 50 times harder than the lowest paid person in their company, but this is the discrepancy that sometimes exists here. There should be a greater balance between the high and low paid employees and from that, the taxes will be more equitable.

[Anonymous]

Something no one seems to talk about in this discussion is what a rip off social security is for the middle class. If instead of having to pay nearly 7% in FICA taxes, I could add that to a 401k and just buy the S&P index, I guarantee you that we'd all be able to retire a lot earlier. But noooooooo, nanny government needs to give us a crappy rate of return to subsidize the bad decision-making of less prudent people who have less impulse control not to spend it right now. That's what really pisses me off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something no one seems to talk about in this discussion is what a rip off social security is for the middle class. If instead of having to pay nearly 7% in FICA taxes, I could add that to a 401k and just buy the S&P index, I guarantee you that we'd all be able to retire a lot earlier. But noooooooo, nanny government needs to give us a crappy rate of return to subsidize the bad decision-making of less prudent people who have less impulse control not to spend it right now. That's what really pisses me off.

Well if you're self-employed you have to pay nearly 15% in FICA taxes as well as contribute to a SEP IRA. Stop your belly aching or man up and start your own business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something no one seems to talk about in this discussion is what a rip off social security is for the middle class. If instead of having to pay nearly 7% in FICA taxes, I could add that to a 401k and just buy the S&P index, I guarantee you that we'd all be able to retire a lot earlier. But noooooooo, nanny government needs to give us a crappy rate of return to subsidize the bad decision-making of less prudent people who have less impulse control not to spend it right now. That's what really pisses me off.

Well if you're self-employed you have to pay nearly 15% in FICA taxes as well as contribute to a SEP IRA. Stop your belly aching or man up and start your own business.

You're missing the point. I agree it's even MORE unfair to the self employed person. Fact is, Social Security is just a way to screw over people who exercise self control and save prudently.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's the correct title for this thread. I'd like all citizens to be invested and have ownership in how we spend and allocate our collective resources. Resources can be time, talent, or money. You can't afford to pay a token, then donate time to something on an approved list. Answer phones, man a booth, clean something, distribute information, help with a fund raiser, organize a parent/kid day, pick up recycling, strengthen the community, your family, something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It has always been a fact that the middle classes, as soon as they came into being, paid the brunt of taxes and were the real drivers of the economy.

The rich as a group have also paid their share. Some of them have indeed paid enormous sums, but not in this country, and the rest always found creative, but legal, ways of evading taxes. You have to understand that the rich are taxed much more in certain other developed countries, and that taxes here are comparatively reasonable.

And I doubt anyone would argue that the very poor should pay more in taxes - would you want to send them to debtor's prison, like they did in 19th century England, when they have no money left?

Your post is rather astoundingly ignorant. I urge you to read and study a little more.

When did I say the very poor should pay "more" in taxes? There's no such thing as more....they pay nothing. (As does nearly half the country.) To the contrary, they are net receivers - even if they paid a token amount.

And what a leap to debtors' prison! Besides the fact they don't exist, we wouldn't worry about any debt. Just like we do, they would "pay" in advwnce throughout the year. If their "earnings" are via welfare, a little $8 deduction for a total of a $100 tax liability is more than reasonable.

Your attitude is not surprising, though. I've found many liberals become aghast at the thought that pooer people on all sorts of government assistance kick back even 1% in taxes, while having no problem bankrupting the middle class with taxes to pay for the poorer people.

If you want to be credible and objective, you can't assume anything. Who are you to assume anything about me? To say I'm liberal, or anything else? You don't know me.
I inference from your post, though, that you've never been very poor yourself and have no first hand knowledge of what it means to live your life day after day scraping pennies together and not having any certainty for the future. It's grinding and incredibly stressful, so much so that research has shown people's brains are permanently affected by this kind of life. You can't tax someone like this "in advance". Correct me if I am wrong and you have, in fact, suffered like this.

Just pointing out:

your 1st sentence: You tell PP "you can't assume anything"
your 4th sentence: You begin assuming PP has never been poor, and spend an entire paragraph expanding that assumption.

[Anonymous]

Amazing how iberals bend over backwards to ensure that the poor don't have to contribute a cent to their care while not giving a flying F about the middle class struggling to make ends meet. For example....

When Obamacare was being rammed down Americans' throats, I told my neighbor I was against it. She called me "heartless," and then proceeded to tell me about a poor friend of hers, earning $20 an hour, who couldn't afford health insurance. She told me that if this friend has a medical situation, she MIGHT HAVE TO SELL HER HOUSE. (She bought the house years ago, when she had a good job.) When I asked if she was looking for a better job, I was met with complete disdain and told how she couldn't find a better job.

Flash forward. Her friend now has free insurance and medical care, and is still in her house. I, on the othe hand, am crashing under an overpriced insurance plan (they've got to charge middle class more to make up for the total coverage they're providing the low esrners), plus thousands of dollars of medical bills the insurance doesn't cover. It's adding up to nearly 30% of my moderate tske-hime pay, and I can't continue indefinitely. Probably within a year or so, I'll need to sell my house. When I told that same neighbor that my medical costs were so high I might have to sell - she said, with a hint of contempt...."well, instead of complaining, just get a higher-paying job."

All the defense for the lower class and to Hell with the middle class. We will see more of it under Hillary, as she shifts even more money from the middle to the lower.

[Anonymous]

News flash: subsidized housing requires the voucher holder to pay a portion of the rent. It's calculated as a percentage of their "income" which could be from employment/wages, disability benefits, VA disability benefits, SSI, etc.

That means they do have skin in the game.

"Food stamps" only cover certain items, which means people are paying out of pocket for food and items like diapers. Food stamps don't cover diapers, cleaning products, etc.

Again, that's skin in the game.

Re: healthcare - free healthcare is primarily limited to children and people with disabilities. Do you want kids without access to healthcare in class with your precious snowflake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how iberals bend over backwards to ensure that the poor don't have to contribute a cent to their care while not giving a flying F about the middle class struggling to make ends meet. For example....

When Obamacare was being rammed down Americans' throats, I told my neighbor I was against it. She called me "heartless," and then proceeded to tell me about a poor friend of hers, earning $20 an hour, who couldn't afford health insurance. She told me that if this friend has a medical situation, she MIGHT HAVE TO SELL HER HOUSE. (She bought the house years ago, when she had a good job.) When I asked if she was looking for a better job, I was met with complete disdain and told how she couldn't find a better job.

Flash forward. Her friend now has free insurance and medical care, and is still in her house. I, on the othe hand, am crashing under an overpriced insurance plan (they've got to charge middle class more to make up for the total coverage they're providing the low esrners), plus thousands of dollars of medical bills the insurance doesn't cover. It's adding up to nearly 30% of my moderate tske-hime pay, and I can't continue indefinitely. Probably within a year or so, I'll need to sell my house. When I told that same neighbor that my medical costs were so high I might have to sell - she said, with a hint of contempt...."well, instead of complaining, just get a higher-paying job."

All the defense for the lower class and to Hell with the middle class. We will see more of it under Hillary, as she shifts even more money from the middle to the lower.

Again: you are attacking the wrong people. Why try to get $10 out of a homeless person seeking medical care when you could have the wealthy pay more? Redirect your anger towards the wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:News flash: subsidized housing requires the voucher holder to pay a portion of the rent. It's calculated as a percentage of their "income" which could be from employment/wages, disability benefits, VA disability benefits, SSI, etc.

That means they do have skin in the game.

"Food stamps" only cover certain items, which means people are paying out of pocket for food and items like diapers. Food stamps don't cover diapers, cleaning products, etc.

Again, that's skin in the game.

Re: healthcare - free healthcare is primarily limited to children and people with disabilities. Do you want kids without access to healthcare in class with your precious snowflake?

Plenty of free healthcare to adults via Medicaid, and Obamacare added an additional 9 million to the rolls. The middle class is paying for that.