| akuma587 said: Is it fair for people who can barely afford to pay for their food and rent to have to pay as much of a percentage of their income as taxes when there are people out there who were born into an affluent family, were able to receive an education, and are a professional making over 150k a year on their own? Fairness to one person is not fairness to another. My family makes over 150k, and I do not think that is fair. To quote the Bible, which many Republicans conveniently ignore when it doesn't suit their interests, "The only thing they asked us to do was to remember the destitute, the very thing I was eager to do." Galatians 2:10. I have just never understood how the purportedly Christian party can have such an unsympathetic attitude towards the poor? It just doesn't make sense to me, unless you assume they are hypocrites. I am not talking about you Kasz, as I have no idea what your religious orientation is. And I am not claiming that religion should have any place in politics, I just find it very contradictory that the Republican Party claims to have the high ground on religious issues (or at least, religious issues as it defines them). |
Bold 1) They wouldn't be. When you account for costs of living the poor would still be paying less. What would be taxed would be income above "cost of living" which is a higher percent when you make more money.
People who are born into an affluent family get money because the people who earned that money want them to. This is fair because those who earned that money have every right to decide what they do with it. Whether it be give it to their family, or spend millions and millions of it away.
Bold 2) Christian Charity isn't about being forced to give away money. It's about choosing to give away money to the poor. It's a difference of opinion. Small government Republicans(and Democrats) don't believe "SCREW THE POOR!"
They believe the Government is a wasteful, unorginized bueracracy that can't help the poor because all it does when it sees a problem is throw more money in it. In otherwords when they have a cup with a hole in it. There idea of keeping it full is to keep pooring water. Not fix the hole.
They believe contributions to charities that work on smaller scale, and just for the goals of curing these problems work better.
Less money taking out for government programs that have questionable abilties means more money for social programs that work.
Would less money be contributed then the government takes? Almost definitly... however the thought is the effectiveness of the programs would be better as money will be donated to the programs that work, and the programs that don't won't get money... unlike the government where everyone is kept around or reshuffled because they don't want to fire people.
