It is always funny when folks want to raise taxes on "others", or cut the programs for "others". Yet we all pay and we all benefit. Now who is willing to pay more than their tax bill or pass on that "free money" that is available or they feel they are owed.
How many Conservatives would like to:
- Turn down available Education financial aid
- Pay more for pre-K and school lunches (biggest part of Ag Budget)
- Pass on their social security benefits
- Let go on their medicare benefits
- Not get a mortgage (ie no gov't insurance)
- Avoid those pesky natural disaster payouts
- Let someone else take those tax credits
- Let their favorite sports team leave town (ie no stadium)
- If public employee, accept lower compensation
- Have questionable parks, bike paths, etc (ie everything for profit)
- Let other countries be themselves (ie less foreign military)
- Stay away from programs that could assist your business, your community, your family or yourself.
You get the idea... Now who can honestly say they will "Just Say NO" to money that is legally theirs?
Also, what other Free Loading do the Conservatives do? Specific programs?
19 comments:
Philosophy comment.
If Payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, Disability, Unemployment, etc)are actually taxes, then any payments of this type are actually Government assistance.
If they are mandatory retirement or insurance programs, then they would be owed benefits.
Just a thought from our previous discussions. (Link)
Correct. We've been sold this idea that we "buy insurance" from the government, through many different programs, but the gov't never explains that our payments don't cover total benefits. Not our fault if we accept the benefits because we're told we "purchased" them.
The problem is that the government has so many programs-- many overlapping, redundant, unnecessary, ineffective, etc.-- that any benefit we do manage to get doesn't begin to match our total tax bill (from the middle class). The key is to get rid of all of these special interest programs, get government back to the few things it can and should do well, and we'll all be richer and better off. IMHO, of course, but let's remember whose opinion that is. :-)
J. Ewing
The question was who will say No?
I am pretty sure the Conservatives can avoid taking this money from the gov't. If the Gov't spending is bad for the country, which individuals will sacrifice their wallet for the common good? (seems kind of Un-American to turn down money...)
It seems to me payroll taxes are currently thought of as payments into mandatory retirement or insurance programs. I think we should start considering need when dealing with current and future short falls with this dedicated tax revenue (and the large budget deficit in general.)
Because I was curious I did brief research into social security benefits for 66 year old people retiring this year.
The maximum monthly benefit is $2500
The average monthly benefit is $1200
If cuts need to be made due to deficits it should be for those whose life/security will not be impacted, not to average recipients whose housing, health, and nutrition would likely be affected.
I think many/most people are not saving adequately for their golden years and the senior citizen poverty rate is likely to increase in the not too distant future.
Laurie,
If they are mandatory retirement or insurance programs, then Liberals shouldn't count them as part of a citizen's tax burden... If this happens, then poor people have a very low tax rate compared to the middle and upper classes.
I liked the cut the benefits for those that saved comment (ie less impacted), it seemed very appropriate to this post. And if these are "mandatory retirement or insurance programs", then the savers have the same right to their investment as the poor no matter how well off they are.
It seems to me that you still view them as a tax and wealth distribution programs. Correct?
John,
About - viewing them as a tax and wealth distribution programs-
that is what I think they should become, at least to some small degree, to keep senior poverty low.
When one looks at charts of federal tax revenues and budget, SS and medicare are 2 large pieces of the pie, which is clear evidence to me that low income people pay taxes.
Lastly, parts of your last comment seem to represent a greedy, selfish pt of view. Some people don't need their full $2500 monthly benefit because after buying their yacht and vacation homes they were still able to squirrel away a small portion of their multimillion dollar salary. While those retirees collecting $1000 or less should have skipped eating out those birthday dinners so they could have doubled their 401K from $50,000
Social Security is mandatory insurance and therefore every nickel of what was promised has to be paid out or the myth will be exposed for the Ponzi scheme it really is. There /is/ a simple solution for Social Security. Simply say (in law) that henceforth the tax will be waived for anyone who puts an equivalent amount into a personal IRA. If they have already worked ten years or more they still get SS, but the benefit amount will be fixed as of "today." That will be supplemented by the amount in their IRA, which, history tells us, will be VASTLY more than "investing" in SS. SS payouts will gradually decrease as younger workers with less "invested" in the SS program reach retirement age and collect their lower benefit. Making it voluntary like this also permits anyone who wants the Social Security "deal" to continue to believe the myth.
Medicare and Medicaid have even simpler solutions. End the Medicaid mandate in its entirety on the states and eliminate the entitlement aspect to it. Block grant Medicaid funds to the states at the current amount with no future increases and perhaps even real declines in spending. It's just not a federal function. States would be free to find their own unique ways to offer health care to the poor, and pay the bill accordingly. Costs would quickly drop.
Medicare is more difficult because of the Medicare tax. Probably the best thing is to do the same as with SS-- that is, allow folks to convert their tax into payments into an HSA accessible only after retirement, unless the employer chooses to fund the HSA as part of their health care program, in which case the two would be additive and usable immediately. On the payout end, give retired people the option to receive their Medicare benefits (and stop paying their Medicare tax) as an equivalent-value voucher for private insurance, including an HSA if they wish. Freed of the Medicare insurance model, costs should drop as much as 50%, to about what current Medicare recipients now receive from the program, and care would improve.
Now, the chances of such common sense being adopted into law?
J. Ewing
I am not trying to solve these programs or improve them in this post. I am trying to understand or explain these inconsistencies:
Primarily: If Conservatives think the Government is spending too much. What is their rationale for taking every penny they can get from the system? Shouldn't they live their beliefs by avoiding those handouts & benefits?
Secondarily: If Liberals think taxes should be higher. What is their rationale behind taking write offs, credits, etc? Shouldn't they live their beliefs by voluntarily paying more?
Very interesting human belief vs behavior questions...
I think J and I might agree on at least this much- it would be foolish for him to forgo the SS, medicare and any other benefits for which he has paid taxes and is entitled, as it would be for me to submit voluntary extra tax $.
I think we both believe that it makes much more sense to vote for candidates whose views best match our own and perhaps support their campaigns with donations of time and or $.
Is this what Tolstoy meant when he said "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing themselves"?
A person will support and vote for people who will raise/lower taxes and spend more/less, however they will not voluntarily make the personal adjustments that they "support".
John,
So how much extra money have you contributed to reduce the deficit, which I believe is your major concern.
Laurie, I WILL agree with you, the only quibble being that the entitlements I have "earned" are unsustainable and must be curbed one way or another, while the taxes you pay cannot POSSIBLY pay for these benefits (even if you pay 100% of your income) unless they are changed. I have proposed simple transitional payment methods that save these programs for the future without increasing taxes.
John, to answer your question more directly, I think... For conservatives to forgo what we have paid for and are "entitled to" would indeed be folly. Do you hand the dealer the check and then leave the new car sitting on the lot? Of course not. Let me put it another way. The government made promises. They lied. Not my problem.
For liberals, I think we have the evidence already in. A few states have a top income tax rate that is voluntary. Massachusetts is one of them. The first year they collected something like $200,000. Since then they have altered the program to allow specific "checkoff donations" for disease research and such, and donations have gone up a bit more. Studies emphasize that people voluntarily contribute when they know where the money goes, a subject for another day. But the most telling fact in my mind is that Warren Buffett, of Buffett Rule fame, and Bill Gates, Jr., whose father agrees with Buffett, both founded the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with some $50Billion of their personal wealth. Why did they not give that money to the government? Instead they get a huge tax deduction, shielding future income from taxes, and to control where the money is spent. These liberals did what made sense. Imagine that.
J. Ewing
Laurie,
I am pretty normal, I will take my tax breaks and benefits. However I don't actively look for either of them. And I am ok with paying a few hundred either way. I am also ok with tax increases & spending cuts.
I am not trying to throw rocks, I simply find it interesting. Especially from those further from the middle.
J,
The problem is that everyone thinks they paid for the car, when they only paid for a bicycle... Yet they are certain that are entitled to that car. Whether they earn millions or thousands.
As someone who believes in universal healthcare my $ were donated to Obama in 2008 rather than given to charity. The $650 million he raised would do much less were it given to care of the poor than than the $2 trillion ACA which will provide insurance for 20 million people.
I think that shows my choice was wise rather than hypocritical.
Laurie, I'm not understanding your math. If you (collectively) gave $650 million to Obama and got $2 trillion in health care for it, where did the rest of that money come from? I KNOW you can't buy that kind of a "deal" anyplace else. Be honest, now, aren't "YOU" really on the hook for the whole $2T? Or your kids, at least, onto the 7th generation?
John, the reason we think we paid for the car is because that is what the salesman told us we were getting. He lied. Not my problem. I bought a car, I'm taking a car. In fact, I've already done it once in my life. I was told I could have a car for a certain price. I walked into the dealership with a cashier's check for that sum and after "we can't sell it for THAT" and some fancy math, I walked away with the car. I commend the approach to you.
J. Ewing
We are discussing taxes and spending, not charity. As J noted, giving to charity shows a lack of faith in the effectiveness of gov't spending. True govt spending fans would give more to gov't, since they see it as a good thing.
Leveraging your influence by contributing to candidates that have similar beliefs makes sense. Though I am not sure what would prevent you from giving some to both.
Though for the next 4 mths I would focus that spending on Obama contributions or the money you have secured for the unfortunate and unwise will likely return to its original owners. ( ie Republican will overturn the wealth transfer plan)
Then your expenditures will be for naught, and the neither the gov't nor charities would have been able to spend them on the less fortunate or unwise. Only the PR folks would benefit from your generousity. I guess that is creating jobs for someone.
J,
I may agree with you if the citizens/customers did not own the car dealership and personally hire the primary employees, including the salesperson. It sounds like you are saying that we business owners are naive or stupid, and should not be held accountable for our choices... So much for accepting personal responsibility.
Also, the Conservatives seem to continue to push for the creation of more new cars that put money into their pockets. Even if someone else has to pay for them...
As I see it, we have two choices come November, and thereafter. We can decide that we are going to (hopefully, quickly) turn this country back into its freedom-loving, free-enterprise, highly profitable and charitable self, or we can continue to pretend that government can spend its way to prosperity rather than the economic oblivion that awaits such socialist fantasies every time they're tried. I have repeatedly said that even the programs conservatives believe they have paid for-- Social Security and Medicare by far the largest-- cannot POSSIBLY be sustained in their current form and benefit levels. And yes, I include in the unworkable options for avoiding the inevitable the notion of taxing away everything that the 1% make, or of taxing away 100% of what EVERYBODY makes! We cannot possibly sustain the path of debt and spending we have been placed upon by this irrationally spendthrift Administration. Donate to him if you want, but do not expect a return, because Mr. Ponzi is about to come a-cropper.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment