A Little Bit of Everything

I don't a credible answer to the question. If I were king the tax would be equal for all--straight 3 percent. This would kill all the screaming over inequalities in the system at the least I would hope. Might even curtail some of the more interesting forms of governmental help. It is very very easy to look at the things of others and wonder why one person rises or falls based on so many unexplainable factors. Often I suspect for many this will be the only Heaven they will know whereas certain sufferers will have their Heaven awaiting them elsewhere and at a later time. A careful reading of Job can ease some of the doubts and fears. Works for me anyway.

Why are the rich complaining? Boo hoo, you don’t get another yacht and cry me a river, you have to degrade yourself to watch a 37” flat screen TV instead of a 46”. I know life sucks. But maybe scrimping on the luxuries is necessary so that others can splurge on the necessities.

Look there has to be a safety net for poor people and we can argue over how high that safety net should be. But when you take something from someone that he has earned, it leaves a bad feeling. If that person gives something, that is out of his heart. When the government takes something from you at the point of a gun (because if you don't pay your taxes they will come to arrest you) it is an outrage to your freedom.

42.2% of our tax dollars are spent on the military while only 8.7% is spent on anti-poverty programs. I don’t resent paying taxes, I just wish the money was use in the best interest of our people. 1 in 4 children in America goes to bed hungry.

That must be federal dollars. I don't think you are counting local and state dollars, and thay have the primary responsibility for local issues. I'd also like to know how you define an anti-poverty program.

Unfortunately, the federal government has already tried the equivalent of some 25 Marshall plans to revive the cities.(7) Since 1965 the federal government has spent an estimated $2.5 trillion on the War on Poverty and urban aid. (That figure includes all spending on welfare, Medicaid, housing, education, job training, and infrastructure and direct aid to cities.) Economist Walter Williams has calculated that that is enough money to purchase all the assets of the Fortune 500 companies plus all of the farmland in the United States.(8) But it has not spurred urban revival. In 1992 federal aid to states and cities rose to $150 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that is the largest amount of federal intergovernmental aid ever extended--hardly a "massive disinvestment."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-188.html

That's just the federal government and that's trillion with a "t".

I did not count education, job training, or infrastructure. That number also did not include 3.3% on housing and community development. I think that is more likely to fall into the anti-poverty category then education or infrastructure. Education and job training is 4.4% of federal tax dollars. While infrastructure contributes to the economic wellbeing of a state or nation, it is not really an anti-poverty program. It benefits business owners who need good roads to ship their products as much as it does the highway department worker who uses his wages to buy the stuff the small business owner ships.

Here is a break down of federal tax dollars

Military $1,109 Health $581 Interest on Non-military Debt $269 Anti-Poverty Programs $228 Education, Training & Social Services $115 Government & Law Enforcement $102 Housing & Community Development $88 Environment, Energy & Science $69 Transportation, Commerce & Agriculture $40 International Affairs $27

This is interesting to me http://www.nationalpriorities.org/au...day2005/ar.pdf it’s a different source than the information I listed. The list above looks at the nation as a whole and is for a different year. According to the link Arkansans pay about 1200 in taxes more than the average Americans.

My state looks like this http://www.hsvvoice.com/news/2008/01..._page/004.html . Again, helping the poor is not the biggest piece of pie. Here is a better break down http://www.state.ar.us/dfa/budget/do...penditures.pdf I know this is boring to everyone but me.

All I am saying is that we pride ourselves on being a Judeo-Christian nation. We make laws that are based on these ideas, and I think that is good. Most people think it’s fine to make restrictions based on biblical standards, but when it comes to making any kind of sacrifice the story changes. Can we say gay marriage should be illegal because it’s not a godly relationship and then complain when we are required to be our brother’s keeper?

I thought you lived in Missouri. Anyway, the military budget is the primary responsiblity of the federal government. An frankly the US as the policeman of the wrold has kept the world relatively stable and peaceful since WWII. (If anyone is going to argue with me over that, save your breath, I don't care what you say.) Plus out of that federal expenditures, there are are millions of jobs that either directly or indirectly (for instance, a candy store near a military base or government contractor) exist because of the military budget. Is it better to give out money in welfare or put people to necessary work?

As to your state budget, $42M to your state legislature? To do what, debate issues? That's ridiculous. I add up almost $4B, almost 25% of the budget, to run the state government. Tell me that's value for your money. I can go through that and pick at it all day ($600M for teacher's retirement while police at $103M???). I'm sure my state is worse. Well, $17B+ for a population of 2.6M, the state is spending around $6600 per person. The best I could find for New York state is this: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/b...budget0507.pdf, and it appears to me we spend about $124B for about 19M population. That means we spend $6600 per person also. But that doesn't count our local governments and New York City spends an awful lot too. But I'm surprised we spend on a state level the same as you do. I must have done something wrong on the NY side. Your budget is laid out very clear. I couldn't find a similar layout on ours.

I have no idea what the answer to this question is. I've read a bit of all that has been said here, with Virgil saying what I thought he would say, and motherhubbard saying what I thought she'd say. I don't know if it's "right" to tax the rich more than the poor are taxed, but it seems to run in cycles as far as who is taxed and how much and how those tax dollars are directed. For example, here in Tennessee we used to have this lovely insurance program called Tenn Care. It was health coverage for the poor. A lot of people were on Tenn Care, including a family member of mine who was born with a disease that left her unable to care for herself. She also requires medication, feedings, a special chair, and a wheelchair and a whole lot of other stuff that I'm leaving out. She needed Tenn Care. She can't work. She's completely helpless.

I also had a couple of family members who were on Tenn Care...they were milking the system, but it was there, so they figured why not...

Tenn Care was good for hospitals. Something like 23% of their revenues came from Tenn Care reimbursements. Someone who had Tenn Care coverage would go in for medical treatment, and a portion of their care would be covered by Tenn Care and they would be billed for the rest.

Tenn Care was expensive as heck, and they had to cut it. It was draining the state. It was also poorly managed. People who actually needed it had their benefits cut off or reduced to the point of cruelty almost. And of course the people who were taking advantage of it, had their benefits cut as well. boo hoo for them.

The point I'm trying to make about taxes is that it doesn't matter who is being taxed more or less during a given time period and who benefits from those tax dollars - the system works in favor of one interest group until people get pissed off enough, and then some politicians come along with their "solution" and tax percentages are changed, and tax dollars are redirected.

And there are all kinds of people, some who need help, some who take advantage, some who worked hard to get what they had, and some who work hard and never get anything.

I can sympathize with the working poor, the wage slaves who need food stamps, or medicine, but I can also sympathize with the rich. I am not rich, but I've seen lazy people sit there and rape the system so that they can stay home and paint their fingernails while other people go off to poopy jobs that they don't like. So, taxing and spending in cycles works for me I guess.

Shalot for the recdord, I've said we need a safety net for people. I would not have people starve and on the streets. But when people have their, shelter, their food, their education, job training, and their health care paid for, what else is there? When is it enough?

That was hard for me to follow, but I don’t think it’s a good use of our money. I think that if people/families were to budget like the government there would be serious trouble. Actually I think a lot of people, businesses, industries, and the government have been making bad choices. So many live on borrowed money. It’s not sustainable. I think part of the economic crisis is that 2/3 of our economy depends on consumer spending. In order for our economy to continue to grow then we have to spend more. But if businesses have to pay out higher wages then that will cut into their profits and that won‘t be good for the economy. I just don’t see how it can balance out.

I’m all for jobs above welfare, Virgil. But I don‘t resent welfare. I believe that most people want work. I think there are a lot of people who think that poor people just don’t want to work. Welfare is insurance for when one becomes unemployed. You pay into this insurance and it comes right out of your pay check. If you should find yourself unemployed it’s there for you. I have a friend who lost his job last month due to the economic downturn. He went to work for the company when he was 20 and he’s 55 now so he’s not old enough to retire. His wife is disabled and has seizures they can’t control. They have a 11 year old daughter. He told his wife not to worry, he had not been without at least one job since he was 12 when he went to work as a farm hand to help support his family when his father was injured in an accident (he lived for another 35 years, but never recovered). After three weeks he got scared. It’s a hard time to try to find a job. Now he’s starting over at minimum wage. There are people who play the system, but most people want more than the meager existence welfare has to offer. I know there is a huge difference in the culture of the north and the south. I don’t know what it’s like up there. Here people understand when a person is disabled and no one blames them, but everyone thinks it’s a shame (I don’t mean something to be ashamed of, just a pity.) Disability is nothing to brag about. Part of being a “man” is working, and I mean really busting your hump. Office jobs and college degrees don’t mean a lot. Men are expected to be bread winners and providers. I don’t know a single man who doesn’t at least want to work including those on disability and welfare. Welfare is not about masses of lazy people who want a vacation, it’s about real people like you and me who have hit a bump in the road. I can happen to anyone.

You have a great story. It’s inspiring and I love it. I love stories about self-actualization. I’m really proud of you! But, I think it’s unfair to say if I can do it anybody can. Not everybody can. One bad decision can really screw up a life forever and we all make bad decisions. And some things are beyond our control. I’m pretty darn lucky, not everyone is.

I’m all for jobs above welfare, Virgil. But I don‘t resent welfare. I believe that most people want work. I think there are a lot of people who think that poor people just don’t want to work.

I don't think I've said anything that would indicate I resent people on welfare. I do have a problem with a system that encourages a lifetime of welfare. But frankly since the 1996 welfare reform act I have not been critical at all of that. It established a five year limit from federal subsidy. If states want to extend that that's their perogative, and the states really push people into jobs. It's in the interest of their state budgets to do so. No this is a good system. I'm not advocatig cutting it. Actually by getting people into jobs the states actually have more money to for those poverty programs.

I guess my irritation comes from two places. One, this need for government programs. Look at what I noticed in your state's budget: 25% of tax cllection goes just to run the state government. A quarter of the money is already sucked up before it even begins to help anyone. Two, and this is more rhetorical than anything else. It bugs me to no end when the argument goes that the rich must pay their fair share. It's as if they don't pay. They pay the overwhelming majority of the bills. Here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html. The top 5% of income earners pay 60% of the federal taxes in 2005. Why is there this constant demonization of people who are rich? Not only do they pay most of the taxes, they provide lots of jobs. It is so unfair. And like I said in my first comment in poor Adereo's blog (of which we have hijacked, I'm sorry) it is never pleasant to have money taken from you, and then to get demonized on top of it, it's just beyond the pale.

As to the people you cite that need it, I am not arguing that there are people who need it. My father was disabled and we needed it. I know and sympathize. And like I said, food, shelter, education, and health care is provided. Certainly it's not easy, I understand.

I've been feeling bad about being a blog hijacker. I'm sorry Adereo. It's a good discussion.

Virgil, if the top 5% control 95% of the money then they should pay 95% of the taxes, not 60%. I agree that running the government is too expensive. I would like to see our elected officials earning the median income of the area they represent. We make it on that.

Jobs are so important. I'm really worried about the growing unemployment problem. I hope the new president focuses on infrastructure. Japan is a good example of how effective that can be in an economic downturn.

Virgil said "Shalot for the recdord, I've said we need a safety net for people. I would not have people starve and on the streets. But when people have their, shelter, their food, their education, job training, and their health care paid for, what else is there? When is it enough?"

I don't know why you're asking me. I don't what you took out of my post, but I sure don't know the answer to when is it enough. The best guess I can come up with is when the people start to get pissy. Give them just enough to keep them from murdering you. That's why we government housing and government cheese.

Wow, no worries about blog hijacking, I find this great. It sounds a lot like the discussion I had in my class. It's a never ending topic- I mean golly in class we are studying it for the 18th century and its still relevent today in the 21st. I find that fascinating. There are many people out there who have strong opinions on the subject, I'm just glad I was able to read a few of them. Thanks everyone!