Available at 
Tweet
Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...
I wholeheartedly agree with Jenn's post. Some people just can't support themselves, because of physical, emotional, or other setbacks. I would be curious to hear the opinions/explanations of anyone who doesn't think there should be government-funded programs to assist people like this.
The question that I really have is whether the wealthy should carry a bigger percentage of the burden. And I would lean toward saying yes, because I am less concerned about getting to keep all DH's hard-earned money than I am about spending our lives relieving the suffering of others. And I am not just talking about relieving the suffering of the very poor, but also the suffering (i.e., tax burdens) of several middle-class people we know who are having trouble sleeping at night b/c of money worries. (Again, DH would say that he will give the money as he chooses. I just trust the government, burdensome as its policies are, to get more money to more truly needy people than we would on our own.)
But... ladymoreta's point also makes sense:
I guess it depends how you group people. Are we all, including the wealthy, part of this group that has a vested interest in societal welfare? Or is it just the poor who have an interest in these programs? Because the poor can't very well fund their own financial aid programs... :huh:
I wholeheartedly agree with Jenn's post. Some people just can't support themselves, because of physical, emotional, or other setbacks. I would be curious to hear the opinions/explanations of anyone who doesn't think there should be government-funded programs to assist people like this.
The question that I really have is whether the wealthy should carry a bigger percentage of the burden. And I would lean toward saying yes, because I am less concerned about getting to keep all DH's hard-earned money than I am about spending our lives relieving the suffering of others. And I am not just talking about relieving the suffering of the very poor, but also the suffering (i.e., tax burdens) of several middle-class people we know who are having trouble sleeping at night b/c of money worries. (Again, DH would say that he will give the money as he chooses. I just trust the government, burdensome as its policies are, to get more money to more truly needy people than we would on our own.)
But... ladymoreta's point also makes sense:
I think that everybody should be responsible for the cost of running our country, because that will give us all a vested interest in seeing it be successful. Even if the very poor only pay $10 a month in taxes, if they have an income, I think they should contribute. And they should not be given "rebate" checks for money they did not pay in. As the saying goes, people need a little skin in the game for it to matter. It is very easy for 95% of people to say that they like Obama's plan, because, according to him, it will end up being cheaper for them with more benefits. If, however, their taxes would increase to pay for it, you'd probably be getting more people asking to recheck his math.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not against raising taxes. I actually think we need to - across the board - or this deficit is going to become a huge problem really fast. I agree that it is less of a burden for the wealthy to pay more, but I believe it is morally wrong and bad for our society to make the wealthy primarily responsible for funding programs they will not have access to.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not against raising taxes. I actually think we need to - across the board - or this deficit is going to become a huge problem really fast. I agree that it is less of a burden for the wealthy to pay more, but I believe it is morally wrong and bad for our society to make the wealthy primarily responsible for funding programs they will not have access to.
And, it's rather obvious that some here get away with waaaayyyy more than others. 
Comment