Quote:
Originally Posted by justinstrife
Yes I make it sound like it's a bad thing, because IT IS A BAD THING. We should not reward bad behavior and bad planning. Taking from the rich, to give to the poor, sorry but it's not a long-term goal anyone should be fighting for. Eventually, you will run out of other people's money. As they will decide they are tired of you taking it. I'm currently working two jobs so that I can afford the things I want in life. I didn't finish college, I've been working since I was a teenager, and I bust my ass to be apart of the middle class. I'm sick and tired of watching my taxes going to those who don't work. I'm not putting 16 hour work days in, so I can feed someone I've never met, who sits infront of the TV all day long watching Oprah. I put these hours in, because I want a house, a family, a fast car, and the ability to retire when I'm in my 60's. I've been on the fence for the past couple of years whether to start my own performance shop for corvettes. Currently, between California's Political Stupidity, and the risk of hyper-inflation in America, I will be sitting on that fence for awhile longer.
I hope America never truly tries to create financial equality. If it does, there will be a revolution here. And I will be apart of it.
|
For what I understand, the whole point is about ensuring equal opportunities for all citizens, not "rewarding failure"
à la Robin Hood.
And your worries are precisely were the problem lies: a huge chunk of the middle class, which pays taxes, are entrapped in a system were they hardly see any benefits, those going not only to those too poor for taxes, but also to those who have got "too rich to fail".
Like everybody who is paying taxes, the middle class is funding things such as administration, education and public research. But now, laws were passed to ensure that past their death they still abide the fine print clause of contract they have signed in naive good faith; good schools, college and universities which they fund are simply too expensive for them; and as they have to use the advanced medical facilities and technology developed with their taxes, they go bankrupt, and are now "failures".
But given the disproportionate amount of power some have gained in the meanwhile, removing their special "liberties" and protections will be a tough job. For at least since J.C. (Julius Caesar), oligarchs have been quick to react to any challenge to their "liberties" (of plundering and monopolizing the benefits of the society that is).
Personally, I think the priority should be on removing all those special protections some sectors of the population and economy currently enjoy, at the expense of the middle class and the whole population. That would be one first step, more or less budget neutral.
I am not too familiar with the American Taxing System, but I guess no source of revenue should be less taxed (is it the case for capital revenue, and speculative gains?).
I hardly see a bigger state agenda as part of the solution, as even socialists have failed at that (being keen of promoting culture, opera houses and such were built and funded with public money, but guess who gets to enjoy those?).
For me the state's function is summed up as: ensure those at the top don't take advantage from those at the bottom, learn the bottom fishing instead of giving it a fish.