USA Election

[jasno999]

What?


It is not inconsiderate by any means. Like I said I don't want to step on people and I do not want the poor or less fortunate to suffer with no help. I think there should be programs and the government should help is certain ways. However I do not believe that just because I am more fortunate or just because I am not on the street that I should have to pay large sums of my money into programs for others.

See the simple fact is this. Many of the poor and those in need of help are there not because of bad luck or bad fortune. Many of these people are there because they are lazy, they do not want to work, and they want handouts. IT is hard to determine who is really in need and who is just a lazy bum unwilling to take low-level jobs to make it by. And because of this the programs that are set up cover all people not there lazy or not.

What I am saying is that I work hard. My parents worked hard. Most of you on this board work hard for what you have. And I believe that because you work hard you deserve to keep what you have. You deserve to enjoy those things that you have worked hard to attain. I understand certain taxes the government charges us. I want the country to be defended and I want it to run. However I do not want the government to come in and tell me that they are going to take away more of my hard earned money in order to give it away to the lazy and those who are not working or trying to trying to earn their own way. Again I realize that not every poor person is lazy. But we do have programs and will continue to have programs in place for those in need. I just do not want a democrat to come in and take more money than is already taken to put it to use for reasons like I mentioned above.

Open your eyes friend.

 

[Goldfish]

*shrugs* Well if that's how you feel about poor people then... fine. But I do know a family who have worked their socks off for years and years as social workers, and they get paid next to nothing. If we didn't have an NHS, and one of them got seriously ill, they wouldn't be able to afford treatment.

People that work hard and get paid relatively well do have a right to keep their money. But if you walked past a homeless person dying in the road, whilst knowing that your money could have saved that person's life, would you still feel like you had the right to keep just a little bit more money?

Open my eyes? My eyes are open, and I'm being honest with myself. My dad is in the top tax bracket, he gets taxed 50%. In my eyes, that's a good thing. If I ever reach that sort of level of earning then I will be happy to give half of it away. I'm not going to obsess over 'lazy' people abusing the system because it's obvious. There will always be people in society who find ways of doing it. But these people still deserve to be treated if they are ill, or in any other way needy.

Because some people are greedy and lazy you want to punish all less fortunate people?

Try doing some charity work, it might change your mind...

 

[jasno999]

Nope.

Look I think it is great for peopel to help in the comunity and offer theyl support time and effort to those in need of help. That is a great thing but it is an option. And I think it should stay for the most part an option.

I think it sucks that your fathergets taxed at such a high rate. I understand the structure and do nto totally dissagree with it but at the same time he has worked for his money and should be able to keep it and spend it as he wishes not as the government wishes.

If you want to take your money and add extra to the programs that help the needy then fine that should be your option and your right. But it should be your decision.

I don't mind the fact that the needy receive help but I do nto want for the democratic party to tell me more and more is needed for the needy so we therfore must take more out of your paycheck to fund it.

Look if I waked over a bum in the street that was needy I would not feel bad for not giving more money. I would feel bad for that person because they let them selves get to that level. But I woudl nto feel in any way responsiable nor would I feel that my money in any way could or would help that person. It is people like that who are the lazzy. Bums are people who have given up. They could have made the decision to work at a fast food place or a low paying job doing somehtng else. They could have done that and tried to scrape by but instead they gave up on life and decided to roam the streets instead.

So the answer is no I do not feel that my money or the goivernemnts money could in reality help people like that. And nor do I think that I should be payign for peple liek that to receive all types of aid. Some help is fine but the democtrats want to keep helpign and helping until society has no more levels. Yet at the same time most of the democrats are in the highest levle of society when it comes to dollars. Hipocrits....


The working person deserves what they earn. They deserve to use what htey ear on themselves. They do nto deserve for their hard earned money to be taken away and given thos those who do not work hard.

YOur eyes are not open Goldfish. YOu only see one side. Maybe you are jsut a super kind person and that is great if you are. And if you want to preach your good ideas then great do it. But you nore the goverment should force people to follow those or similar ideas. Becasue in reality we do not all agree with your ideas. If yo uwant to give away your money then do it. I don't.


And to end it is hard for me to beleive that if you made the same amount of money that your father did and when you made that money the tax bracket was lowered to say 30%. Well it is hard for me to beleive that you would take an extra 20% and tell the goverment that they could have that extra 20% and use it for the poor and needy(50% in total to the goverment like your dad). I am almost positive that you woudl not give that extra large sum of money away if you did nto have to.

And if you want then you can always give me the extra money because as it appears I am more needy than you are and therfore oyou should give me some handouts as well. Seems fare to me if you look at it through the democratic eyses.

 

[Goldfish]

So the answer is no I do not feel that my money or the goivernemnts money could in reality help people like that. And nor do I think that I should be payign for peple liek that to receive all types of aid. Some help is fine but the democtrats want to keep helpign and helping until society has no more levels. Yet at the same time most of the democrats are in the highest levle of society when it comes to dollars. Hipocrits....

That is not hypocritical. The more you earn, the more you pay in taxes. Therefore, these 'rich democrats' you speak of will have to pay more money if they raise taxes. Their ideal still applies to them.

And to end it is hard for me to beleive that if you made the same amount of money that your father did and when you made that money the tax bracket was lowered to say 30%. Well it is hard for me to beleive that you would take an extra 20% and tell the goverment that they could have that extra 20% and use it for the poor and needy(50% in total to the goverment like your dad). I am almost positive that you woudl not give that extra large sum of money away if you did nto have to.

This point is not valid, it does not make sense. If the tax level was raised to say 70%, I would pay 70%. Because I had to. I would have no choice. If it was 50%, or 30%, I would pay those respective amounts. I would consider it a necessary amount for the needs of the government at that particular time. However, a similar analogy to what you're saying is that, well, I don't need all my clothes, so why not give them ALL away to charity?

And if you want then you can always give me the extra money because as it appears I am more needy than you are and therfore oyou should give me some handouts as well. Seems fare to me if you look at it through the democratic eyses.

You're attempting to put-down the democratic way of thinking (I'm not a democrat by the way) for no apparent reason. Democrats don't want to hand out all rich people's money to poor people. But higher taxes do mean more money to spend on those that need it in some way.

I have heard similar arguments towards the justification of the Iraq War. They say it'll create a better world, and I'm sure it will. Saddam wasn't the nicest of fellows, after all, and it's good he's gone. However, there are people in your VERY OWN COUNTRY that live in conditions you'd scoff at, people that are desperately trying to give up drugs, but don't have the support, and yet the U.S. government is willing to spend almost $150 billion on a foreign war ( source: http://costofwar.com/ ).

Yes, what I am saying is idealistic, and may cost you an extra cent in the dollar once you reach taxing age, but it is also a way of taking responsibility for something which nobody else (as is evident with you) wishes to take responibility for, and responsibility seems to be something sadly lacking in modern society.

When the only people capable of 'helping the community' as you say, are the government, they need to obtain their funds from somewhere. That somewhere is you. I fully understand what you are saying, but don't use greed and sloth as ways of justifying your arguments.

I don't care if you agree with me, I just want you to accept that what I say is not merely Liberal banter, but meaningful.

 

[jasno999]

You are totaly wrong and non-informed in some of your statments.

"That is not hypocritical. The more you earn, the more you pay in taxes. Therefore, these 'rich democrats' you speak of will have to pay more money if they raise taxes. Their ideal still applies to them. "

Yes and that exists now. The more you make the more you pay in taxes. That is how the tax system and brackets work. That is fine but there is no need to change it or no need to tax the rich more and more. There is also no reason to taxe the middle class more and more. People who make more give more cause they have to but that does not mean they should continualy be the ones who have to pay more and more for aid.

This point is not valid, it does not make sense. If the tax level was raised to say 70%, I would pay 70%. Because I had to. I would have no choice. If it was 50%, or 30%, I would pay those respective amounts. I would consider it a necessary amount for the needs of the government at that particular time. However, a similar analogy to what you're saying is that, well, I don't need all my clothes, so why not give them ALL away to charity?

That statment proves to me you have no idea what you are talkign about. Previously you made this statment: My dad is in the top tax bracket, he gets taxed 50%. In my eyes, that's a good thing. If I ever reach that sort of level of earning then I will be happy to give half of it away.

Therfore I am saying if you earned what your dad did but when you earned it the tax bracket was lowered down to 30% then you beign who you are should be totally willign to give up that extra 20% to the goverment??? That is what you said. If that is not what you beleive then in reality you have to realize you are the same as me and you need to stop refuting what you yourself beleive in. And that is we should keep the money we earn and be able to use it for what we see fit.

You're attempting to put-down the democratic way of thinking (I'm not a democrat by the way) for no apparent reason. Democrats don't want to hand out all rich people's money to poor people. But higher taxes do mean more money to spend on those that need it in some way.

Again open your eyes. That is exactly what the democratic way of thinking is. THey very much want to hand out money to all the poor and needy they want to make it so we all have everything no matter what we do. SO they want the guy who works and toils for a living to have healtcare and benifits yet at the same time they want the crack dealers in the street to also get the same healthcare. That is bull. That is not how it should be. But that is what they want.

I have heard similar arguments towards the justification of the Iraq War. They say it'll create a better world, and I'm sure it will. Saddam wasn't the nicest of fellows, after all, and it's good he's gone. However, there are people in your VERY OWN COUNTRY that live in conditions you'd scoff at, people that are desperately trying to give up drugs, but don't have the support, and yet the U.S. government is willing to spend almost $150 billion on a foreign war

As for the war: I am not a huge fan at this point. I don't like the fact that americans are still giving their lives and fighting over there. But what makes me more mad than that is the fact that with all the money spent they do not even have the proper material and weapons and armor that they need to do what they are being asked to do.

However I understand the war and the larger scale reasons for it. I would rather the fight be over there than over here. Remember 911? Remember what happened? A large part of this war has to do with terrisom and keeping it outside of the US. People soo soon forget things like 911. It can happen again and probably would have if not for Bush's decisions and the war.

 

[meriadoc]

This point is not valid, it does not make sense. If the tax level was raised to say 70%, I would pay 70%. Because I had to. I would have no choice. If it was 50%, or 30%, I would pay those respective amounts. I would consider it a necessary amount for the needs of the government at that particular time. However, a similar analogy to what you're saying is that, well, I don't need all my clothes, so why not give them ALL away to charity?

That statment proves to me you have no idea what you are talkign about. Previously you made this statment: My dad is in the top tax bracket, he gets taxed 50%. In my eyes, that's a good thing. If I ever reach that sort of level of earning then I will be happy to give half of it away.

Ok, but if you LOWER the higher tax rate - it would sure as heck help the economy. Funny, but true. Lower the higher tax bracket, the richer people would be more inclined to start businesses, thus creating more jobs. More jobs mean more taxes for the government, and at the same time, less people on unemployment, health benefits etc etc.

It does help. You raise taxes to 70% you'll see the overall economy going right down the toilet.

 

[jasno999]

Great point. Indeed if you lowered, or kept reasonable,some of the higher tax brackets liek the upper class and especially the middle class you would see things such as buisnesses startign up as well as more spending. Bush have tax cuts and the idea was to spur the economy.

Tax cuts put more money in our pockets and then with more money we will be inclined to spend more which will increase tranactions, jobs, and it will boost the economy. These things take time and I think we will see some of that in the next few years.

If you tax everybody too much you will see people start to hold onto their money and stop spending.