1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Non-Taxpaying Class

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by dainbramage, Dec 1, 2002.

  1. dainbramage

    dainbramage Land Of The Lost


    The above link is to an editorial at the Washington Post. I thought the author has written what I have always thought. But what the heck, I have been at low paying jobs and the taxes keep getting raised, and I was just glad I had at least something to bring home.
    Another thing that bothers me is what the author didn't write about, is this: How do the poor go to work and pay for good child care? They don't. Kids are left on their own until mom and dad can make it home at a reasonable hour.
    So let's raise taxes on the poor to make affordable child care available to all. Hah!
  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Dain, can I move this in to BN&A forum? I don't think it's inflammatory (yet). :)
  3. dainbramage

    dainbramage Land Of The Lost

    Yes, go ahead. I didn't know where to put it.
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member


    Btw, didn't Rush state this same silly idea in his first book? Regarding taxing the poor?
  5. dainbramage

    dainbramage Land Of The Lost

    I din't read his book. But do you remember that Newt Gingrich said that the poor didn't have to be poor if they didn't want to be.
    Since "Welfare to Work" is in place, it makes it easier to tax the poor more. Just think, taking more of your hard earned dollars to support, what? The poor still have to rely on the Welfare system for Medicaid and food stamps.
  6. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Oh I agree. To get out of Welfare is tough, not because it's hard to find a job and all of that propaganda, it's tough because there aren't too many incentives to.

    Taxing the working poor would make them ask why the hell should they work if they see a small amount of take home money?
  7. dainbramage

    dainbramage Land Of The Lost

    When I lived in the Midwest there was an article in the Financial section of the local newspaper. The author states that if the father loses a $15 an hour job, he can always find a $7 or $8 an hour job and then mom can work for the same wage. That works out okay, maybe.
    Gee, what will you do with the children after they come home from school. Most places out there charge around $65 per week per child. If you have more children, you simply cannot afford childcare, so you leave them alone.
  8. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Which means that these same children would not know what better life is and end up with the same motivation to "get out" as their parents, coupled with restrictions from the system.

    And on it goes.
  9. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    Now, wait a second....
    Let me be the devils's advocate for a moment.

    Where, exactly, is it written that the government, or society, owes anyone a living?
    No incentive to work, to pay your own way?
    Easier to let the tax dollars of other hard working folks pay your way?

    You have children and can't work and take care of them at the same time? Taxpayers are to pay to correct this lack of foresight and responsibility on your part?
    Need help in time of unforeseen need, OK. But, one shouldn't depend on said help to forge a lifestyle.

    Granted, taxing a particular segment of society (due to tax structure codes) to pay for these noble causes is unjust.

    But, perhaps, we should be pondering how much of our tax dollars are pissed away in other government spending, rather than trying to depict which classes of taxpayers pay what percentage towards our social programs.

    I submit that with more attention to fiscal responsibility in government, we'll have more than enough taxpayers dollars to help any citizen in a bind, through various social programs.

    Or, did I miss the point of this thread?
    If so, I appologize.
  10. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I think Ethics was pointing out that our current system is not fixing a problem that works against the country. When we say you caused the problem, we will not help, we are only perpetuating the problem. In this country we are not willing to say who can have children but we are willing to let the children enter a never ending cycle of government dependency. We must find solutions that don't condemn so many to hopeless lives of indifference. How many of the fine citizens in this forum would have made it where you are when faced with the hill to climb we saddle so many with? I know it can be done but it is so much easier to say it can be done when so many of us did not have to actually do it.

    Then again, if I misinterpreted Ethic's remarks, forget the above.:)
  11. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    The main problem I see with Welfare is that there is no way to control how many children people decide to have. I have known people on Welfare who actually continued to have children even though they were dependant on tax payers to support the ones they already had. I know a family of five in my neighborhood who just moved in this past summer. Neither the mother nor the father works, and I know that they receive welfare, food stamps, etc. because I overheard the mother bragging about it to her neighbor across the street. She was fucking BRAGGING about how much she got! In fact, I recall her stating that they just increased her food stamp money to $325 per month.

    Don't get me wrong...these people aren't exactly rich. They live in a dump. However, why is neither one of them working? There are a few businesses right up the road from here who are currently hiring people, and they both have cars. They both have family that is always hanging around at their place, so I sure they wouldn't have a problem getting a sitter for their children. These people are perfectly happy to live the lifestyle that they do and never have to work. They contribute absolutely nothing to society and are a disgrace, in my opinion. And we should be ashamed of ourselves for creating a system for people like this to use and abuse.

    Oh and guess what? The mother is pregnant. Isn't that wonderful planning? Now I'm sure her food stamp money will go up even more. They've really thought this through.

    Welfare should serve two purposes. 1) Provide TEMPORARY financial assistance to people in unfortunate circumstances. 2) Encourage/help people to find jobs.
    [/welfare rant]

    I have known people who had 0% federal tax liability due to the child credit thing(I've helped people file their taxes). I think it's total bullshit, but that's just the selfish republican side of me speaking. Our government should have no right taxing me more money than somebody who makes the same amount of money that I do just because I don't have kids. As far as I'm concerned, the child tax credit is not a tax credit for those with kids. It's an extra tax for those who have no children! When I am ready to check out at Wal*Mart, I don't have to tell them how many kids I have so that they can determine how much sales tax I have to pay. Why, then, is it done for federal taxes?
  12. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    Good points Shiny, as usual.

    But, even without personal knowledge of others, I submit that some of the 'fine citizens in this forum' have indeed made it facing the hill that we're talking about.
    They busted their ass. They never took a dime of charity from anyone. They took responsibility for their own lives. Two or three jobs, at times, to make ends meet.
    It's not easy, for those so inclined.

    But, perhaps that moral fiber is a relic of the past.

    However, I agree, again, that the tax codes need rework, in order to not penalize those folks trying their best to earn their own way.

    Just a thought.
  13. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Yes, Shiny, that's what I meant.

    Let me also point out a very unpopular albeit philosophical point of view, that any societ can not rid of the poor working class, ever.
  14. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    It's the same old saw. How to discourage people from having children they can't afford to support? Education doesn't work, at least not what's currently being taught as the 'societal' lesson, eg, having the rest of us shoulder the burder isn't the same message. What penalty, if any, should apply to people cranking out kids they can't afford?

    As farfetched as it sounds, a subdermal longlasting contraceptive implant could actually be a viable solution. It is inserted at adolescence and doesn't get removed until individuals demonstrate they can be the sole financial support of a child.

    Having it illegally removed and producing offspring would then result in stiff penalties. Fertility should not be the only requirement for parenthood.
  15. dainbramage

    dainbramage Land Of The Lost

    It seems to me that poor people have a lot of children only because they cannot afford abortions, while the rich who can afford children, do not seem to have a lot.

    I also think that if a man's name appears on more than say 4 or 5 birth certificates with different women as the mother's then he automatically should have a vasectomy. My stepson has 4 children that I know of, with 3 different women. He should have been neutered years ago.

    Yes, coot, we do need a better education system in this country. There are teachers out there that may have started out really wanting to open a child's mind to whatever subject they were teaching and they ended up just being apathetic. So we need people who can teach and not take the bullshit that the kids bring to class. There are a lot of teacher's out there that are scared of the kid's in their class. Just try and talk to those children's parents. Hah!
  16. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Coot, I agree with the theory of having people produce proof they can support children before they have them but I fear the implementation. Who sets the standards and who determines who meets them? Would we then have a requirement for marriages, after all, stats would bear out that children born into a happy marriage succeed more, oh, wait, now we have to grade the marriage.

    The sarcasm is not directed at the idea, Coot, I sincerely agree with it, I just don't see how it can be enforced fairly. Too many special interest groups (can you say religions) would want their say. And then of course the poor would say you are interfering with their unalienable right to procreate. Then the dems would say you are eliminating their voters at the source, ad nauseum. It would fit into a country that reverted to logic, yes, I said logic, in its laws and priorities. Of course, logic would also require that we make people pass parenting classes before procreating, but again, who makes up the curriculum and the tests?
  17. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Hey dainbramage, the rich can't afford abotions, they have procedures such as D&C's while they forbid abortions to people who need them. Do you realize that many of the same people who are against abortion are also against providing free birth control. As illogical, as ludicrous as it seems, it is true.
  18. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    It is ludicrous, and it certainly is true. I think those people are generally the ones with religious motives for their opinions.

    I happen to be pro-life, but I am also all for people using contraception. I just don't like the thought of people using abortion as birth control, and that is what 99.9% of abortions are used as in this country.

    I honestly believe that most of our social problems could be solved if every parent did a good job of parenting. Unfortunately, I don't see how we could implement a system such as the one Coot suggested, but I think that we would be better off having done it. Too many people pop out kids only to sit back and let Hillary's village raise them. Well I have news for Hillary: Raise your own fucking kids, you bitch!
  19. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Effectively getting the message out goes a long way. ;)
  20. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    You know, that could be a nice avatar. ;)

Share This Page