I think taxes should be low. People should be allowed to keep much more of what they earn. I have no problem with lending a helping hand to someone in need, but I do not feel that I should be obliged to help that person. I know that some on here may disagree with that immensely, but that is fine with me. We will not all agree on everything
Taxes are low. America has one of, if the lowest, rates of taxation in the industrialized west and also lower educational achievement, inadequate health care and one of widest chasms of economic inequality in the western world.
Its about privilege. The ones who are on the top, ie privileged, do not want to give up what they have. Ill say more later.
Thanks, that was a way better argument for it. That was exactly the explanation I wanted to hear. Now I can better understand the reasoning behind it. The reason I asked here is because I know that all media is biased (more or less), so either you get propaganda from the liberals, or from the conservatives. Or in sweden: The social democrats or the moderates. So it's better to ask around and talk to people. Even if I don't agree, since so many believe it, you should always give it a chance to atleast listen and understand it, am I right?
This is also a comment I say just because it concerns me, not to be angry or provocative: When I see people say they want to give voluntarily, that sort of means that the only ones who will recieve are things you approve on. Doesn't it trouble you that you might not have enough knowledge to decide what needs more money? Like if the goverment want to build safehouses for immigrants who live under a death threat, and can't really tell the public about it, since the information can go into wrong hands.. this people ending up in terrible danger? Or things that are provocative, like safe houses for prostitutes with drugproblems.. stuff no-one wants to give money to? Building roads in remote areas where not enough people live to pay for it themselves, building schools, education systems, child care for people without a job (I realize that might be something we only have in sweden though). You know, all that. It concerns me that in a system where you give voluntairily yiish however you speell it.. volunte.. vol.. gah.. anycase in a system you give of free will, you will only give after your own agenda?
Yes, taxes are pretty low in the US compared to many other countries. But that doesn't mean that they couldn't be lower
anybody knows what your taxes pay for and how that should be payed for instead? Just to get a better grip in. See, I'm trying to be dead pedagogical about this so it wont end up in a huge flaming row. I'm really just curious. EDIT: I found this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18098378/
I see no problem with people giving for the things that they feel are important and not giving to the things they do not feel are important, no it doesn't bother me. As to safe houses for immigrants, we don't have that problem, even our illegal immigrants are not homeless, we have a homeless problem of drug addicts, alcoholics, and the mentally ill, many people have tried to start many types of programs to help them and we still see them on the streets, they don't stay in the homes we have helped them get. Some do, but many don't. (we have faith based programs all over America to help with this problem also) Don't forget that people have a right to make choices that effect their lifestyle and they get to live with the consequences too. (I'm not talking about the mentally ill - but I would include prostitutes (accept in Nevada), drug addicts, alcoholics, and any other person who has made a choice for an unhealthy lifestyle.) We have many different programs, some governmental, some private to help them. We have property taxes already in place and many types of local taxes to build roads and schools. I personally have voted against any increase in revenue to my local school system recently until they begin to show some accountability, I worked for them, there is a lot of waist at all levels, and it needs to be cleaned up. (That's one reason I love what Sarah Palin stands for!) She cleaned up a lot of governmental waist in her state. Raising taxes only perpetuates the problem and doesn't clean up the waisted spending. I know that may not be the case nationwide, but it is here locally. As to child care for people who don't work, (I fail to see the need) if they aren't working then why would they need child care. I do understand they may be looking for a job. We have a welfare program in Arizona that addresses that need and helps out with child care on a temporary basis while the parent is looking for work. You see, we already have a lot of welfare programs, but they are State based, they are voted on State by State and the citizens of each state decided what they are willing to pay for. The type of system that has been suggested be implemented for health care (in my understanding) is a federally mandated system that will require businesses to carry health insurance for all employees, (which could cause many to lay off employees or even close their doors) and they will be fined if they do not. It will also require parents to have health insurance for all minor children and they will be fined if they do not. (When my children were small we took them to Mexico (I live on the border) to the Dr, they had good care, but they didn't have health insurance.) There are also many local clinics that will treat anyone on a sliding scale fee, based on the persons income level. (Health insurance is nice to have but not absolutely necessary. If a person has an emergency the hospital is required to give aid, if they have a chronic illness and cannot afford to pay for treatment we have State funded programs to help there to.) The problem most of us "Conservative Americans" have with this is the Federal Government mandating what we do as individual states, and taking it out our hands to vote on. That is a "communistic mentality" for lack of a better word. You call it socialism, to me it's pretty much the same ball of wax, just different extremes.
The only place I can be sure where my taxes goes is when it goes to my local government, that would be property taxes. State and Federal income tax is much harder to trace as to where it ends up. The other one we know of is our Social Security tax and Medicare taxes. Those go directly to pay for those programs. But as it is the Social Security system is in trouble because of the way it was set up and due to the aging Baby Boomer's there will soon be more people on SS benefits than are paying in, and we will have a major crisis. Most of our younger generations believe they will never see a dime of SS benefits, but they are still required to pay into a bankrupt system. (That's a whole other issue though, so let's not get into it here.)
I have no idea how your system works woith state vs goverment, since we don't have that here, so forgive my lack of knowledge. Please stop calling it communism, ok? It's a social democratic system I have in my country and I would be happy if you could respect that it isn't the same thing. Socialism isn't either what I'm talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy I respect that you are pro a individualistic market liberal economic system, so it would be nice to be respected for my view as a modern social democrat. On the subject of need for child care for unemployed, the reason is just as stated, so that they can have time to get a job. In some places here in sweden you wont get any money (the so called a-kassa, unemployment.. eh.. money? Not the same as welfare.. sort of an insurance) if you don't apply for a certain amount of jobs, or look for jobs for a certain amount of time everyday. Also the childcare has an important role in the childs life, that they should have the possibility to be with other children and learn to interact in supervision of child care personel, without feeling left out because of their economic status.. Thats what I think anyway.
I am not saying your system is communistic, I don't understand your system either, but what has been proposed here could be considered a slippery slope toward communism. I'll retain my word, with all due respect, to say I don't understand what your government is, I haven't studied it. I only know what I don't want to see here. So we can agree to disagree on the verbiage. It sounds like we already have a lot of the same type of bases covered, we just do it differently. As to the difference with States vs. Federal government. We are the "United States of America" Each individual State makes it's own laws, and takes care of it's own issues, but we are united under one Federal government that was originally meant to only provide guidance, and protection from foreign threats. It was never meant to mandate our lives and make laws covering the whole country. That very "Statesmanship" is what is being threatened by bigger and bigger federal government and many people feel our individual rights are being taken away. Issues are being implemented by our Congressmen and our Senators as federal decisions that none of us have voted on or had any say at all about. Example:The whole abortion debate is a larger issue because the right to make the local laws about abortion was overturned by our federal government, and now the federal government mandates that all States accept abortion as legal. If Row vs. Wade were to be overturned it would not make abortion illegal as many people suppose, but would only turn that decision back into the hands of each State to decide. This is exactly why many States have voted in a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman, so that the Federal government cannot mandate the acceptance of gay marriage in all the States. Very few people are against the gay people having rights to civil unions and such, but even that should be decided at a local level. That's what we call government Of the people, By the people, & For the people. It's our constitutional right to make those decisions by a local vote on the issues, to determine how our individual States will rule.
I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if USA left more to decide for it's states, since you are a huge country, I can def agree that more could be governed by the individual states or at least that the idea sounds plausible and good. We have have more or less shires here that has the possibility to have their own systems, and part of our tax goes to them, they decide about health care (within the framework of the desitions from the goverment) and taxation levels (on the part that goes to them) and so on.. I know we have an area right outside my city with the lowest tax, but they also have only high income inhabitants, doesnt allow any refugees to live there and so on. And still they call it a place with more freedom. hu. For who? The wealthy? When you go there it feels like they'll check your passport and register you.. Its not the tax, I'm sure, but the fact that they don't want to help taking care of people like everyone else is.. I mean, my city is completely full of illegal immigrants fleeing from war and poverty, legal immigrants, refugees.. and they can't even help one. *arghargh*. And there might be the problem if there is more freedom for each state to decide. They might choose not to help carry the burden of supporting poor of a certain race or other.. and then some other state will have to take them on and will have an economic loss because of the imbalance.. I'm learning heaps. This is interesting.
Well so am I, I didn't mean to offend in anyway, so thanks for hearing me out. I was trying to answer your questions as honestly as I know how, and of course with my "conservative" view point, which is all I could do. In all actuality most of the States do make most of their own laws and tax policies, currently, so you said it would be interesting, it is in fact going on now. That is one reason some of us are so adamantly against the Federal government taking that power away in any area. I figure if one state makes a law others don't like, you don't have to live there, and then people will just move. I still believe we should have that right. If everyone moved out of states that made really stupid laws, then those states would be forced to changed those laws if they wanted people to live there. In Alaska they have financial incentives for people to move there because it's not an easy place to live. In Arizona we are getting a lot of people from all over who tend to be more liberal lately and that is why we saw the narrow margin for McCain this election in his home state. If the liberals vote in too many taxes, I'll move to a state like Washington where they have very little, or maybe New Mexico. You see it is freedom, it's freedom to make my own choices as to how I spend my money. (I know, now were back to square one! So I'll leave it there.)
It doesn't work well with greed, that's what's wrong with it. We're greedy in America. We forget our roots here all too quickly when individual situations improve. We're basically a nation of sellouts.
