-
@Mrs D: I don't see you as evil, though we do disagree on some things. As far as the drug tests go-what then if they fail? To me, they should get more support, not less. Mandatory rehab, or check-ins, or audits, or something. I'm also not convinced it's as easy to scam WIC as it might be SNAP. NY's WIC is still paper-based and very tedious, with a lot of documentation involved. It seems pretty hard to get away with much there.
-
@Maysprout: except without student loans under-privileged kids coming from low income families will never get a chance at advanced degrees unless they can qualify for scholarships. Which they may not have been able to get bc they are busy working 4 jobs to help support the family?
As for the tax code...just make it even...have a poverty level - below that no taxes - above it same rate for everyone no deductions. The rate will be lower without a doubt and no misuse of the deductions by the awful wealthy people. Less resources needed by the IRS to audit personal tax returns. More resources for elsewhere. Get crazy and do the same thing for corporations...
Instead we have a complex code that we keep complicating...causing us to spend more resources auditing it...if you get rid of the complications the monitoring of the tax code becomes simpler...
-
@LovelyPlum: right - help them...if they want it...but hat happens if they never do the check ins...never do the rehab...tell you to F off? Do you keep sending the check? Thats where I struggle...
-
@Mrs D: Here, here! I'm all for revamping the IRS. Oh man, this thread has got way off topic.
-
@MamaG: Not totally off topic...if you are discussing taxes (taxing and the use of taxed funds) its relevant to discuss the code...
-
@Mrs D: I wasn't serious about loans, just trying to put in perspective what your argument against assistance sounds like to me.
As for a flat tax rate, like I said before part of the point of taxes is to keep money circulating in the economy and have some accountability that money earned isn't being spent just on wants. Those deductions serve as check ups to keep people off assistance. So most lower middle income people will get back most of their money because they have enough deductions in health expenses, retirement savings, childcare, etc. As for investment deductions they do serve a purpose in keeping money flowing to new ventures and not just tucked under someone's mattress. Again a lot of tax policies are wonky but they're not completely unintelligible and if you want an innovative economy a flat tax is not the way to go.
-
@Mrs D: I don't know the answer to that. But what's the alternative-keep them on the street, where they could potentially tax the system more? Don't get me wrong- I think there should be consequences. But I don't believe that those consequences should immediately be pull the plug. To me, that seems to perpetuate the problem in other ways.
-
@pinkcupcake: exactly. I have very conservative family members who complain when people on food stamps are buying salmon....and when they are buying soda and cheese curls. I remember an uncle condescendingly saying how this woman's cart only had soda and brownie mix in it. I pointed out that maybe it was her kid's birthday and this was all she could do to make it a little special. Bottom line- They totally can't win.
I'm for higher taxes and better quality of life. In my experience, it boils down to - you either pay now (taxes) or pay later (need for services and assistance when the need arises). I know I oversimplified it, but it's just what it comes down to for me. -
Bring on the taxes!
I'm from the US and I think it's crazy how little we pay in taxes. I would definitely pay more in taxes for more services.
Also, I work in healthcare and fully support the move towards a single payer system. Are there issues with a government run single payer? Sure. Is it better than what we have now? Absolutely! Almost all of the issues that people are afraid of with single payer (long waits, denial of services, etc.) are already an issue for many people on private healthcare.
I work in a clinic where we have a year wait list for new patients. That is primarily an issue with not having enough of that kind of specialist, not an issue with payment. In the US docs spend a fortune getting educated and so they have a high incentive to choose a lucrative specialty, hence huge wait lists for non-financially-lucrative specialties.
And even get me started on parental leave, vacation time and student loans!
-
Hey guys, I'm starting to get the sense that there is only one "acceptable" answer to the original question and those of us who answered differently are getting attacked. The fact that more than one person chimed in to try and prove me wrong about how much I'm taxed is pretty disappointing. it makes me think that there is a lot of animosity here towards higher earners, which goes back to the point I made earlier about there being a cultural attitude that I don't "deserve" to keep my own money. i think tax brackets in the first place are a disgrace, period. that doesn't mean I don't think government assistance programs shouldn't exist, or that I don't recognize my own privilege. It's fine if most of you disagree with that, but it seems like there is kind of a ganging-up situation going on that is a little unfair.
-
Woo taxes! We get the opportunity to increase our taxes through property levies with some regularity and we always vote yes.
-
@Modern Daisy: understanding tax brackets I thought was applicable to this discussion. When you say high earners are taxed 40 or 50% it's a persuasive argument that we're taxed too much already. but that's not how we're taxed.
-
@Modern Daisy: I'm sorry you feel that way and that was in no way my intention with any of my comments. It's something I'm passionate about since my husband is from an extremely poverty-stricken area where the majority of people receive assistance in some form or another. I see firsthand every time I'm there how the cycle of poverty affects them and their families.
-
@Modern Daisy: I agree and I found the comments about there being so much privilege to be non-constructive to the conversation. I typically enjoy these threads, because it helps me see beyond my own experiences. I know there are tons of incredible women on this site and I appreciate their perspectives, such a @jedeve: who provided extremely detailed and very intriguing information about assistance!
-
I would happily pay more taxes, but I would prefer they be funneled into education (from preschool at age 3 through community college) and healthcare (including free mental health and rehab for anyone who wants/needs it). I believe if we take care of those two needs fully, a lot of our other problems will decrease over time naturally and our tax rate could decrease. I think in the meantime we need these social safety nets, but I really do believe that if people are educated and have access to healthcare, they will be in a much better position to make wise decisions that will better their lives.
Also, I am pretty fiscally conservative and I do believe that taxing the wealthy at a much higher rate is unfair, but I also don't believe in a flat tax. Pulling a number out of the air to use as an example, you can't say that 10% of 20,000 has the same value to an individual who is just trying to survive as 10% of 500,000 has to an individual who has far more than they need. I think there should be some sort of step, but a true flat tax puts a huge burden on those who really are just trying their best to make it on their own.
I do think there should be a time limit on safety net programs though, and they should be accompanied by education programs and free childcare so that people on these programs can have more opportunity to improve their lives. Providing services indefinitely removes the incentive to make changes, but taking the supports away eliminates any opportunity.
-
@MamaG: so without knowing her whole situation (and keep in mind I never worked in benefits management or anything....) you have to report the income and number of people in your household. So if she has a roommate and isn't reporting it, but feeding her, she is getting less benefits than she would. So I don't think feeding more people than she is reporting to the government is fraud per se, and is probably hurting her more than anyone else. You have to reapply for food stamps every 6 mo or so, so it is possible circumstances change and you continue getting benefits. (Like getting a job or moving back in with parents.) Even if she is living rent free, with three kids and being unemployed, it's still likely she gets something in benefits. I don't really know if there is a question about support she would be getting from someone outside the household. I think it would be risky to assume a boyfriend's support would be on going....could lead to problems in abusice relationships.... Women being left and no money or assistance.
It sounds like she would have a really tough time getting a job. And maybe she is depressed too, I could imagine being if I was in that situation. And I won't deny that for a certain strata of society, they can earn marginally more on benefits than working. To me this says are wages are abysmally low that you could earn less than what the government considers bare minimum. Also that we need better job training!
A few other points about SNAP, most recipients are children and the elderly. The majority of adults on the program ARE working, most stay on it for less than a year.
I always wonder about personal stories about "I saw someone buying steak on food stamps." Most states use debit card type cards. So it would be pretty hard to know someone was using food stamps in the aisle.
@JenGirl: yes! I always raise an eyebrow when I hear stuff like, "oh I had to wait a week for an appointment through the NHS!" Umm I had to wait three months and drive ten hours round trip to get my son to a specialist! Granted, I am glad that we can pick our pediatrician and she knows our family history. But I think I would trade that for not having to worry about paying for a birth when I wasn't getting paid on a three month mat leave!
-
From my (canadian) perspective, I highly value the security that our health system provides, compared to the insecurity (as I perceive it) of the US system. Of course no system is perfect, but it also makes sense to me that there is a greater potential for efficiency when everyone's resources are pooled together and not being used for profit.
-
@jedeve: Thanks for the info, it sheds some light on the situation and helps me understand better. I'm not holding you accountable for clarifying here (promise).
So let's say in this case Mom + 3 kids with no income gets X benefit. Add into the mix the "roommate" which is supplying support (so there is income) and the "roommate" in theory is getting some benefit of SNAP. So in theory there is now Mom + 3 kids + Adult + income getting X benefit. It's hard to judge without numbers which way the SNAP benefit would go (up or down), but it seems to me that it would be different. I guess I had not considered that the SNAP benefit could increase, which is what I think you were saying. Did I understand?
-
@LovelyPlum: cant disagree with you there! Anyone who says healthcare should be in the free market like other consumer products doesn't fully understand this country's health care system in its current state! You can't have a competitive market when no one can tell you how much a procedure will cost, just to name one major problem.
-
@Modern Daisy: I think we've gotten a bit off topic! And part of that is my fault. I get a buy passionate when I hear people talking about government waste and inefficiency because a lot of times they are really repeating myths and misconceptions. So I want to correct those.
I think the OP was asking about taxes with more of a 1:1 ratio. Like, pay more, get more health insurance. Or pay more, get mat leave. I think people get more worked up about stuff they pay more for, but don't actually benefit from, like SNAP. I think a range of opinions is fine, like not wanting to pay more for taxes and fund your mat leave yourself. It is good to remember though that we all have different stuff increased taxes would help. Like if I was a bee on assistance it might hurt to hear people say they think it should be cut.
-
@MamaG: yeah, if it is a roommate she should report them as part of her household. I *think*. And it could make benefit go up or down dependent on how much they contribute. I think under the table stuff has got to be so hard to track, that they would mainly just focus on stuff like income/rent/assets that can be proven.
-
@Mrs D: when you're worried about where your next meal is going to come from, or how you will obtain your medications, or if your kid is going to be shot walking home from school, I imagine clipping coupons is not at the forefront of your mind. These are the types of things everyone on HB who is privileged take for granted bc they don't cross our mind when we talk about things like this.
@Applesandbananas: talking about and addressing our own privilege can never be not constructive in my opinion. It's so ingrained we don't even recognize it (refer to my example above). Pointing it out helps us to be aware of it and the more we do that, the better in my opinion. It has nothing to do with animosity towards higher earners as someone else said here, which kind of makes me roll my eyes, sorry. Privilege isn't just about income.
-
@catomd00: I think if you specifically address "well, having a car, etc. is privilege" that's one thing but to just pop in a thread and say "oh there's a lot of privilege in here" is not constructive. It's condescending.
Many people have given thoughtful responses and that's made this a great thread. I always appreciate constructive discussions around topics like this. I was raised very staunchly Republican and as I prepare to cast a vote in an election year that is very crucial, I especially value the myriad of experiences!
-
@Applesandbananas: Honestly, I'm not surprised by the comments and that's why I have chosen not to participate in this thread. I feel like if you hold an opinion that is not "popular" on HB you start getting attacked.
-
I think that, regardless of how socialized your country is, there are always people that think there are people abusing the system and committing fraud and misspending money.
Canada has higher levels of tax (although it is comparable in some jurisdictions to more taxed American jurisdictions, leaving aside the prospect of spending after tax dollars on health care and education) and we have one of the lowest rates of government corruption in the world.
We are in the top tax bracket of our country and we pay fairly high taxes do not directly benefit from many tax write-offs or services that we pay into, but oh well.
What's excellent about higher tax/high services is that we are never one job/insurance loss away from medical bankruptcy. If we are 80 and we have a variety of health conditions, we are not looking at a choice between not getting all the treatment necessary or leaving ourselves destitute. I do not have to work at a loss so that I can carry our insurance. I have health problems and so does my husband and we spend about $100 a year after tax on our total health including prescriptions, dental, and optical. If we have a premature baby, the only thing we have to worry about is the logistics of having a baby in the hospital, not the possibility of a co-pay that will be financially ruinous. We don't have a high deductible to meet every year, so we are not making choices about whether what we or the kids have is REALLY worth a trip to the doctor. We never, ever have our healthcare factor in to any decision that we make (besides travelling to the States) - not what jobs we're going to take, where we are going to live, whether one of us can stay at home, whether we can open a business, etc.
We have excellent public schools to choose from. Our top universities cost 1/5 as much per year as a top American university. If we both lose our jobs, we will still receive a stipend to live on while we search for new jobs. I get a year long mat leave with a decent amount of money being paid the entire time. If we develop addictions or a gambling problem or are disabled, we won't end up on the street. All of this means that we feel more secure and have better health for all of us, even if we don't have much direct "taking" from the system versus what we put in. So as a relatively privileged part of a high tax jurisdiction, I still think there's a huge benefit to us, leaving aside the question of the social good of benefiting others who are less fortunate.
I am not American so I don't really understand the pull yourself up by your bootstraps ethic, or the rugged individualism as a way of life. That said, I find it very difficult to wrap my head around the idea of placing faith in a for profit private insurance company over a not-for profit government that has to be responsive to the people that it is elected by. And I say that as someone who works in the for-profit insurance business.
-
I think it's worth noting that the whole purpose of taxation is to redistribute wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" and that no system is perfect! As far as I understand, progressive taxation is the best of a bad bunch, hence why many (if not most) countries use it.
-
@Mrs D: I'm curious which is more of a priority to you, minimizing spending or fishing out those who aren't deserving of benefits because of their drug use? Because if you're looking at it from a strictly cost saving perspective, we actually save money when we don't drug screen and we spend more when drug screenings are used to turn away active users applying for benefits. So is it more important to punish those suffering from addiction by withholding benefits or is it more important to minimize government spending on assistance programs? If it makes you feel any better about who the government is assisting with your taxes, those receiving benefits use drugs at a much lower rate than the general population.
-
I know this was previously mentioned, but here's an article that breaks it down nicely. There's a bogeyman of welfare abuse, and Florida instituted a drug testing program. The number of people it found using illegal drugs and receiving welfare was so tiny that the cost of the program far outweighed army savings by denying benefits:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?referer=
I think a lot more suburban middle class or wealthy people going to mlm parties abuse drugs (legal or illegal) than the welfare queens of people's imaginations. Better my taxes go to social welfare programs than the military budget, where the vast majority go.
-
@Kemma: redistribution from the rich to the poor isn't the purpose or at least how it came to be on the U.S. In the US, our income taxes are primarily due to the civil war and WWI. Corporations are the primary beneficiaries of war spending. Social programs were secondary and brought out bc of wars and having soldiers and families devastated by war and no safety nets built in for grandparents who lost their children and thus any financial support, etc.
-
I fear that the given how the US government works higher taxes would never actually mean more benefits for anyone. Each side ruins it for the other, which is why "obamacare" is a pretty massive failure.
And honestly, we have Tricare. I used to have private insurance. Tricare is a joke. They constantly don't pay things they're supposed to and I'm calling them at least once a month because of it. They won't approve a surgery on my back because they'd rather I rely on steroid injections and muscle relaxers FOREVER. It took me over 9 months to get an MRI. I promise the general public does not want insurance handled by the US Government.
I don't have the answers. But until there is some extensive government reform, higher taxes aren't going to help anyone in the US.
-
@BandDmommy: I appear to fall into that category frequently!
-
@Mrs D: Thank you so much for your participation and your honesty in this thread. You and I are on polar opposite ends of the political spectrum, so it has been really interesting to read not just your opinion but some of the thoughts and beliefs that sit behind it.
FWIW, I manage an advice and advocacy service for people in social housing and I do see, firsthand, the kind of people you describe; they are very much the minority but they do exist. I firmly believe that all people are deserving of help and that people's "life choices" are often the result of upbringing, circumstances, poor education etc..... but I can understand why you feel the way you do too. Its frustrating when you work so damn hard and then you see people who dont put in the same hours getting given your money.
-
What if you find yourself in a place of need, through no fault of your own? As I read some of these responses, this thought is the "thesis," if you will, of what comes to my mind.
-
@Modern Daisy: This is not meant to pile on or anything, but I was curious about the statement you made a few pages ago about bonus income being taxed at a higher rate of 52%.
I have never noticed this with my own bonus, so I decided to do a little bit of research and this is simply not true. While the IRS may mandate that your employer withhold a higher % of the bonus income at the time of the paycheck, at the end of the year when you do your taxes, it looks like all earned income is treated all the same -- regardless of whether it was categorized as regular or supplemental (which bonus falls under) at the time it was given to you.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-bonus-taxed-high-2014-12
"Although all of your earned dollars are equal at tax time, when bonuses are issued, they're considered supplemental income by the IRS and held to a higher withholding rate."
-
@Greentea: exactly. I keep writing and then deleting what I wrote because I feel like there's no point anymore, but what you said is so true. There's nothing separating me from "that person" receiving gov't assistance except a job, which can be lost at anytime, and a safety net in the form of family, which is not something I "earned" but was fortunate enough to have been born into.
If the past few years have taught me anything, it's that money, jobs, and status can change with the blink of an eye. It just takes one event - through no fault of their own - to bring someone to their knees.
-
I'm Canadian, and I'm happy to have the security that the higher tax/higher service provides. I don't actually feel like we're taxed that much more than some parts of the US here in BC.
The one thing that sometimes annoys me, is our real estate is soooo expensive here (average cost of a single detached is 1.82 million). So, when I worked in downtown Vancouver, I commuted 2 hours each way per day by bus in order to live somewhere affordable and get to my job. But, a lot of government housing is right downtown, because it's deemed vital for persons accessing services to live near them. So, sometimes it's a bit hard to stomach that my tax dollars provided convenience that I couldn't even afford for myself.
-
I don't like how many people here seem to think the majority of the people using assistance really have no other options.
My husband was homeless as a child. Was forced into dropping out of high school by a shitty Foster parent (so he could go work for him for next to nothing) then just dumped out of the system at 18 with nowhere to go, no family, not even a high school diploma. It may not have been what he always wanted but he joined the military, now has been in for over 13 years and is working on his bachelor's degree, and is able to support his family enough that I'm able to stay home with our kids. We don't live a luxurious life (he drives my car from high school to and from work, lol) but we have a good life and he did that himself.
I'm not saying everyone who is having a hard time needs to go to the nearest recruiting office, but MOST people have options, they just don't like them.
-
@Navy_Mommy: I'm not sure how true that statement is, that "MOST people have options." I think the majority of those on assistance are families with children (or, more likely, single parents with children).
-
So, what happened last night?
-
@looch: it was a train wreck.
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite1
346 comments