-
@yoursilverlining: I'm a CPA and very well aware of how deductions work. I also believe people should be taxed and receive deductions equally...so yes it does bother me that I dont get to deduct one penny of my student loan interest...I pay a higher tax rate on those "extra pennies" and also do not get to use a deduction others do...to me this is unfair.
-
@Mrs D: I agree with everything you said.
Without wanting to get too much into the debate, I'll just say that I'd prefer to decide myself where my money goes and who it goes to.
I know too many people who would abuse the system, too many people who feel entitled for hand outs. I'm all for taking care of people that NEED it, but there are so many others that just don't want to work for it at all, and take advantage of the system.
And since we're already trillions of dollars in debt, I just don't understand how it would work when our politicians can't handle the money they're already getting. -
@josina: exactly...lets define what NEEDS are...then lets define who truly NEEDS...then lets figure out how to fund it efficiently and properly without corruption. I am 100% supportive of that.
In the mean time - I'll keep doing my best to contribute as little to the gov't as possible allowing me to contribute more to the charities I trust and have faith in to do good for the right people.
-
@Adira: I feel for the children and others who live in poverty, I truly do and we do make charitable contributions to organizations that support the families in our area who are in need. I'm very aware of how blessed and fortunate we are, but I think until the corruption in our government is resolved, throwing more money at the government isn't going to resolve anything. We need a lot of change, in our government and in our society. I also think we don't delve deeply enough into the root cause of why there are so many living in poverty in one of the most developed countries in the world. I just don't believe that handing politicians a blank check is going to resolve anything, but that doesn't mean I don't care about others.
-
@Mrs D: You do realize that just because your extra money is taxed at a higher rate, you still get to take home a majority of that extra money, right? That less fortunate people do NOT have access to...
-
@Applesandbananas: Taxes aren't a blank check - they are allocated to certain things. And the way we vote affects the kinds of things they are allocated towards.
-
I think the issue is that everyone has a different definition of who the "right people" are (to use MrsD's language).
It's either everyone or no one that gets a safety net. If you try to define based on circumstances, you end up with exceptions for the people that found themselves in a bad situation even though they planned or tried to plan.
I know the iphone is the famed case, yeah you have an iphone, so you can't be needy, but in that case, it's often the cheapest solution to having a device and service, and nowadays you really need to be online to apply for jobs.
-
@Adira: Yes I do - and I also realize I work very hard for my money and feel I should be entitled to take home as much of it as possible. I have major issues with the inequalities in our taxes...I also know that I contribute a lot more than most to charities and helping people...the more I am taxed the less I am able to do that. I contribute to charities that make a difference...not the US gov't in which I am sure the contribution rate to those who actually need it is as bad as most of our national powerhouse charities - which I refuse to support. So really - all it does by taxing me more is hurt what truly trickles down to those need it...
The gov't refusing to allow me that $2500 deduction only keeps my charitable givings down. So the gov't gets more - probably 80-90% of which never leaves the gov't and their corrupt ways. Whereas had I kept more of that money...it would have gone to charities with contributions rates closer to 80% actually getting to those in need.
I am as fiscally conservative as they get...so I am a lost cause to you probably...
-
I find the government to be grossly inefficient and would prefer to be able to send my dollars to other institutions that can support the neediest people in the world. I'd rather give to companies who have incentives to use successful business practices so that they can continue to stay open. I feel as though the government does not have any incentive for positive change. Their only goal is re-election.
My opinion is that incentives fuel innovation and I want the dollars I earn to go towards my own living expenses, the future of my family, and to directly help those in need without it having to funnel through hundreds of bureaucratic offices in government before finally reaching those who need it most. I don't find that notion selfish in the slightest. I absolutely feel it is my duty to help others. I just want to be able to give directly instead of paying high taxes. I don't have a problem with taxes in general, I just prefer that they be limited.
-
@Mrs D: fair does not necessarily mean equal.
Is it fair that Investment income is taxed at lower rates than earned income? The wealthy disproportionately take advantage of this and lower their effective tax rates.
-
@looch: Not only do you need the internet to apply for jobs, but a lot of homework these days relies on the internet or access to a computer too.
-
@looch: given proper oversight it is certainly possible to find the "right" people. Given no oversight (the current state) you have people abusing the system left and right. I have seen it first hand plenty of times. I cant count how many times I had people try to sell me their food stamps for cash - which I am sure they were going to use to go buy their babies formula...
The iPhone is one example. There are hundreds of others. Leasing new cars they cant afford, smoking, drinking, dropping your kid at daycare in rags while you wear brand new Ugg boots. The list is endless.
A program run by someone more interested in making it work as opposed to being corrupt...
-
@Mrs D: Yep, people like you are the problem.
-
@Adira: I know it's not technically a blank check and usually this time of year, there are info graphics showing how tax dollars are allocated, but it's not very transparent and I think the average person has a lot of misconceptions (myself included!) as to where tax dollars go, how certain programs are funded, etc. and that perpetuates the feelings of mistrust.
-
@Mrs D: The number of people who abuse the system is so small... just because you've seen it happen doesn't mean that the majority of people are.
-
@Mrs D: Who would the right people be then? I am genuinely curious because the people who need the most help (those born into generational poverty) are the ones that are most likely to be excluded.
I know that the Myth of the Welfare Queen is alive and well, but I truly believe that the majority of people that are in the system would rather be anywhere but there but don't have the resources to get themselves out. Are there abusers of the system, of course, but I don't think the reasearch supports an entire system of people abusing the system.
-
@Applesandbananas: The majority of our taxes actually go towards military spending!
-
@DillonLion: very well said.
@sunny: I support a flat tax...no matter how it is earned...I also dont think Investment Income causing that much disparity for most people. I'm sure in many peoples eyes I fall into that "wealthy" category...I have zero investment income....the percentage of people who "use" that is I think lower than many people probably realize...
-
@Mrs D: I won't deny that there are those that abuse the system. But they are not the majority. The majority of people who receive assistance truly need it.
-
@DillonLion: YES. This! We are incredibly fiscally conservative, make under the median American household income, save for our own expenses and family, make wise financial decisions, and donate as we can to others less fortunate directly. It does not take a lot of wealth to be able to help others and I would prefer to be the one to do that and not have the government involved.
And a big yes to @Mrs D: , as well. I don't see a lot of oversight in the government programs right now. People say it's there BUT I know and have seen so many first hand examples of people working the system that it makes me struggle to trust that the government will be able to handle more programs and what not. In a perfect world, yes, it would be ideal. In 2016 America? I'm not sure it's realistic or would look as nice as everyone imagines it to look.
So no - I don't want more taxes for more programs. I want to continue managing our own finances - and we are hardly top wage earners in our single income household.
-
This has a great chart about how much those on assistance are spending on things vs those who aren't.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/09/welfare-abuse-america_n_5289997.html
-
@Adira: I'm sorry - I say this as politely as possible but I simply disagree with that statement...I do not think its small...I have lived in three different parts of the country and seen abuses in each of them. I just dont believe I have happened to live in the only 3 areas it happens...
Not to mention - if you add in the people who do not intentionally abuse the system - rather misuse the system it becomes an even larger portion. For example - do we train these people or offer assistance to them on how to live within their means or the means provided to them? I have never once heard anyone talk about the guidance given to those on public assistance. Do we teach them how to feed their children on a budget - and as healthy as is possible? I think there is a large portion of people within the system who want to do good and do the right thing but lack the knowledge to know how to do it or what it is.
@looch: Of course it is not the entire system. And I 100% agree that training and education has to be an important part of any system. I also think that with proper oversight and monitoring of the bad eggs it would leave more resources to serve the right people. I dont know that I could properly define "right people" - I think its easier to define "wrong people"....violators of the system (using resources inappropriately), drug abusers (not talking one time offenders here...I'm talking habitual offenders)...people failing to meet minimum standards of those in their care. Those are some of the "wrong people" who need more oversight. You flush them out of the system and you open it up to the ones who are trying or want to try. I am not saying the "bad" ones are 50% of the system...but even if they are 10-20% imagine how far those dollars could go to help the other 80%...THEN take the oversight away from the corrupt government and you are talking a significant improvement in the funds available to help those in need.
-
@DillonLion: I'm not clear why you'd make a charitable contribution to a for profit company.
-
@coopsmama: Your own language seems to indicate you view the poor as just "stupider" than you, and thus undeserving of our help, because you "make wise financial decisions" and they apparently do not.
-
@avivoca: absolutely...I doubt its even 50%...but it is more than "minimal" in my opinion/research/real life experience
-
@Adira: That's beyond absurd. I was comparing my decisions to the government's.
(eta - I don't believe I discussed those truly poor at all. I only discussed those that I personally know working the system and who are proudly doing so and explicitly providing details of how they've done it, sad to say.)
-
For those who are advocating for more oversight, reforms and training, you do realize that you're asking for "more programs" right? All of these come at a cost--aka your tax dollars. Is it worth $X millions per year to track that Y% of welfare recipients don't cheat the system? What if the amount cheated is smaller than X? Does that even make sense to do?
-
@Mrs D: "All studies point to a very low rate of fraud in welfare programs, this despite knowing a guy who knows a guy who owns three new cars and two 80" flat-screen HD TVs. The current best stat is 2.6%." (https://www.quora.com/How-much-welfare-fraud-is-there-really)
<<do we train these people or offer assistance to them on how to live within their means or the means provided to them?>>
How would you suggest we pay for such training?
<<Do we teach them how to feed their children on a budget - and as healthy as is possible?>>
Again, how would you suggest we pay for that? Also, keep in mind that healthy foods tend to cost much more than unhealthy foods.
-
@sunny: I'm sorry if my post was unclear. I was talking about both charitable giving and paying for services provided by for-profit companies. Does that make sense? If not I can expand.
-
@sunny: They've actually looked into that and decided that the costs to oversee and prevent welfare fraud FAR outweighs the actual amount of it occurring. It simply would be a waste of money to try to do it since it's such a small percentage of people that are taking advantage.
-
@Mrs D: I also wonder if a lot of people have ever tried to feed a family healthfully on assistance. It's very difficult. Processed foods are the cheapest and they are the most likely foods to be covered by food stamps. I think a really good book illustrating the difficulties the poor have is Nickle and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. I know it will likely not change your mind at all but it's a good view into what life is actually like for people either on assistance or who make too much to qualify but too little to be comfortable.
-
@Mrs D: what do you mean by "flush them out of the system?" I am not trying to pick your choice of wording apart, but these are exactly the people I believe we should be helping as they often have no where else to turn.
eta: I realize that no one is going to change their mind. I am not out to try to change anyone's view, but I do think the solution lies in meeting in the middle.
-
Here's a great read about grocery shopping while on assistance.
http://www.babble.com/best-recipes/what-i-learned-after-taking-a-homeless-mother-grocery-shopping/
-
@Adira: If the rate of fraud is 2.6% as quoted above, then I can't imagine that it is worthwhile to try to police all 100% of recipients.
-
@sunny: I support privatizing a lot of these programs...I dont support the government or most governemtn employees having any involvement. They have proven to be a very inefficient program manager...
@Adira: I have no idea the source of that data or how reliable it is. I am sure there are reports out there that say it is that low - and I am sure there are reports that say it is much higher. I dont believe much of what I read - most people have an agenda for what they publish...
And you are right - some of these things cost money but pay benefits in the long term. For example - does it cost more to train/teach on healthy behaviors YES - is that cost likely less than the savings in their healthcare costs - YES. Its making an investment in the future of the program. But no - the current programs do not allow for this. As a suggestion - it could possibly be paid for my removing assistance from those who should not be receiving it.
And I agree - healthy foods can be more expensive. But there are simple things people can do to make that stuff more cost effective. Shopping local (i.e. farmers markets); getting "day old" stuff from the store...learning how to stretch a dollar is something that can be taught and not everyone knows how to do.
-
@sunny: I agree!
-
@Mrs D: Training, etc. is all well and good until you factor in that hours spent in training on how to be healthy are hours that are taken away from working, which produces income. I don't know about your area, but my local farmer's markets are more expensive than the store and they don't take WIC/EBC/Food stamps. I also know from experience that stretching a dollar at the store means buying cheaper, more processed foods because they can be stretched longer. A $3 bag of Ramen or $4 of Michlenas frozen dinners will feed a family of four for an entire meal. A bag of just lettuce for one meal is close to that at my grocery. I know this because I just bought a large salad mix yesterday at the store for $4.99 and that's because I splurged on organic lettuce. The reality is that most people on assistance can't afford healthy foods because they are too expensive. They don't have the luxury of being able to spend $100 a week on groceries. They might only get $100 of food stamps for a month.
-
@looch: You will win all day if you pick my choice of wording apart - I am not the most eloquent to say the least
I have zero interest in supporting people who abuse drugs and/or gov't assistance. If they want to seek help - and be monitored I am more than happy to support them. But they have to prove to me they earn it - not the other way around.
For example...I support drug testing for those receiving gov't assistance. I think that is the easiest example. I also think - you come into the system "innocent until proven guilty" the first time you screw up perhaps you get a pass. However, screw up twice - thats it "guilty until you prove yourself". If I am supporting you I think its fair to want that support going to the right places. If you are receiving assistance and have children - I better see that they are getting the money - otherwise maybe you lose your kids until you learn how to properly care for them and fulfill their NEEDS. This is what I see most of that infuriates me. People not caring for their children properly with the assistance they receive. Its the issue with the biggest problem solving because no one wants to take people children away from them of course...but how do we monitor that the funds are getting to those in need who may not have a voice of their own yet.
-
@Mrs D: You said:
<<I dont believe much of what I read - most people have an agenda for what they publish...>>
That definitely makes it hard to have a conversation with you about this. If you don't believe studies that show the amount of fraud is really much lower than you believe it to be, then... well... there's not really more to say, I guess.
@avivoca: Everything you said!
-
@avivoca: There is many levels of healthy. Is it the best meal under the sun - perhaps not - but I think anyone struggling to feed their children should understand that for $10 they can put a "healthy" meal on the table. Pkg of ground beef, frozen veggies, box of pasta and pasta sauce - probably not even $10 if you have coupons/sales/etc.
Are they going to be able to eat clean and unprocessed foods - no...but I dont even fall into that category. Its about meeting basic needs...not exemplary nutritional standards. From what I have seen and read - some people in the program could stand an education in simple being able to offer a balanced (albeit processed to some extent) diet to children/family.
Again - I think there are levels of needs to be met. Lets meet the basic needs of these people before fussing over if they get the most balanced and unprocessed diet.
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite1
346 comments