Should We Take Care of the Poor?

Zing, you got me.

 

Total standard right wing corporatist BS. The real corporate tax in the U.S. is not "higher than average". It is typical of developed countries. Go look it up and learn something useful today.

 

Nonsense. Every country also has tax write offs if you can prove me wrong show it don't say it.

 

It wasn't supposed to be a slanted question. I genuinely want to know if welfare is something we ought to pursue. Clearly welfare helps poor people, some may argue the "teach a man to fish", but that aside, I think most people on here agree that poor people do need some sort of safety net. Nobody should be starving and dying on the streets because of their own poor decisions. That being said, a lot of people also believe that poverty should be uncomfortable.

In forming my own views on welfare. I think the basics should be provided. Those include a bed, roof, heat, shower, food, and medical care. I'm not talking about a house for each individual, more like a homeless shelter. It would be quintessentially uncomfortable. Then I think that people should be allowed to live there regardless of the reason. Next, the government needs to funnel money into jobs. Those jobs should be low income. Essentially they're McDonald's jobs, but they don't have the same upside opportunity for hard workers. Finally, I think college/trade school should be free. If they're willing and capable, they ought to be financed. And no, I'm not in favor of sending people to school for their 5th art history degree. I have thought for a while that we should have a report that simply explains the present demand and salary for all existing jobs. Then it would show projections and the required schooling to achieve that salary. I was certainly never presented with such a thing as a child, and I found one that sort of fulfilled that requirement, but it only had present employment, not projected demand or salary. Regardless, that's how I think we should fund jobs. If engineers are in demand, free schooling for engineers. If you want to be an artist, then good for you, that'll be $20k a semester in tuition.

I understand if you don't agree with my solutions lol

 

I can agree with some of what you advocate, but only the parts that have merit and would benefit the nation as a whole.

I like your idea of government subsidizing education in areas where we have a critical, unfilled need. Some of those educational areas could stand out as real national security concerns. But, no, government should NOT be "creating jobs". We don't live in a communistic or socialistic system. There is nothing whatever in the Constitution about the government being responsible for "creating" jobs, per se.

You say that, "Nobody should be starving and dying on the streets because of their own poor decisions." But I definitely disagree with that, too. With the exception of people who suffer from birth defects, horrible injuries, horrible diseases, etc., each of us MUST take responsibility to handle our own lives in a free society, such as we have in the United States. Each of us has the freedom to make a success of our lives, or to throw it all away on "bad decisions" -- it is a personal choice, and no one or no government should be making those choices for us. Do you want some kind of "Big Brother" (like Orwell described in "1984" to take control of our lives and tell us what to do and what to think?! I most certainly do NOT.

 

I absolutely agree. I definitely do not want Big Brother lol. We might simply have to disagree on the "starving to death on the streets" thing. I think some people wind up there for reasons that are completely out of their control. Take for example children who are born into a poor family or the stock market traders during the great depression. We have bankruptcy laws to protect business leaders when they fail, and we have welfare for everyone else.

Now, I simply disagree with the present welfare system. I think we ought to provide those low wage jobs for a single reason. I think this country was better in the 90's when people used to say, "why don't you just get a job". That mentality has gone away because jobs were scares for so long. I like the mentality, and I'd be willing to pay tax money for a system that creates a hardworking ethos in this country. The idea used to be that you could work your way to the top. We should never lose that. When people feel as though their future is not in their own hands, they tend to revolt in some way.

Finally, if you truly do not take care of your people, they tend to look at prison as a safe haven. Crime becomes a game that is played. The proper motivators need to be set up. The carrot and the stick. Right now prison is not much of a carrot, and our welfare does not inspire hard work. So our carrots and sticks are backwards.

 

Once again, I agree with you in principle. And I definitely do NOT think that government, or the Federal Reserve combine, or anyone else should be "bailing out" and "rescuing" ANY private company or corporation that has done stupid or criminal things of any kind. The past recession was a good example of how both Republicans and Democrats, "W" Bush and Obama, stood to one side like morons and let the central bankers and Wall Street distort and manipulate a free-market system in order to pick "winners and losers" among wealthy stock market gamblers.

I suppose it could be said that I was being 'uncharitable' if I suggested that these irresonsible, scheming, manipulating bastards should have been thrust into bankruptcy and ended up in a line at a soup kitchen, but that's EXACTLY how I feel they SHOULD have been treated, again, in a free-market, capitalistic system.

Anyway, we should have welfare systems for those who cannot support themselves, and everyone else should have to face the consequences of what they DO in life. It's not a perfect world, no... and Clarke was right... "The stars are not for man."

 

Well, I'm glad we agree in principle. I think we disagree with how to get there. I may be completely wrong though. So let's just hope that where we go is better than where we are now.

 

Precisely define "poor."

Are you "poor?"

 

Microsoft pays far more than Bills Dr does. Bills Dr wont be paying 45% under trumps tax plan

 

Yes we are only imagining corporations running to Ireland for the low taxes

 

Whatever you think should be provided its not the job of the Federal government. Its not in the constitution. They have no power to distribute charity and pick winners and losers.If so they could donate monies to anyone they choose in the name of charity

- - - Updated - - -

ME

 

I would have no problem at all with a person who has suffered the disabilities that you have with receiving the full measure of disability payouts. You are one of the FEW who deserve it, and I do regret that you have had these things happen in your life. It's the truly fully-employable people who fake disabilities and who commit fraud that I have no sympathy for whatsoever. Your situation as described is entirely different.

 

It does not take the Federal government to do that

 

There is no reason to give volume discounts on taxes, and I doubt it.

 

What's stopping you from doing that? Start yourself a bidness and pay them "living wages" so they can have some dignity. Problem solved.

now hop to it.

 

Microsoft probably pays at least more than any 10 Drs combined. How can you possibly say that. Its like saying oil companies pay less than Drs

 

As a percentage of income, they probably do.

 

No as a percentage of income the Drs do but Microsoft still pays far far more and thats what counts. You guys crack me up you jump on the oil companies that pay billions in taxes and say they dont pay enough.If it werent for them and those like them there would be little money that could be collected from working people that what make any dent in the budget.

The top 1% pay almost half the taxes but they dont pay enough according to you

 

I don't recall attacking oil companies over their tax rates. I attack them for other reasons, but if you would like to refresh my memory, please do.

 

I mentioned them comparing them to Microsoft which is in the same boat. The top 1% pay almost half the taxes but you want them to pay more

 

I don't consider them comparable because the oil industry is loaded down with depreciable physical assets (I think they and mining might be the only two industries that can also depreciate the land they physically own and not just the improvements). Hell most microsoft stuff you buy now is a box with no discs in them--only a download code. Add into that the money being sucked up by X-box, and we are not seeing that money circulate back into main street economies. At least big oil keeps convenience stores open and the employees paid in pretty much every place you will ever find yourself. Can't say the same for Microsoft.

It is not about wanting anybody to pay more. It is about recognizing that we have a lot of stagnating economies within the US and something more needs to be done by the government to rejuvenate them and that will cost money. Unlike some progressives, I further recognize that we cannot just borrow forever so I support finding a more equitable balance that helps spread growth more evenly and that requires taxation.

 

What you say is true for all of most of the industries in that field like google Facebook and twitter. They have very few employees and a vast source of income. So you want to soak them for being smart and successful ?

 

I want to soak them for holding billions of dollars offshore. It is only fair. Ford gets to deduct the money they pay google for ads, so google should have to be taxed on the profits from those ads. If you don't want to tax them, then don't allow advertising to be tax deductible.

 

Well I want them to bring it home. Lets see if Trump addresses this or not. I didnt say I dont want to tax them. What I dont want is you being taxed for working. Its akin to slavery