akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
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.
|
If you're willing to admit that less money goes to the donations than would if the government got involved, then I am willing to listen to what you have to say.
But I have never really believed that many Republicans or Democrats are as generous with their money in their personal lives as they would like to let on. I am all for people doing volunteer work, and I have done a lot of it myself (was the president of a large volunteer organization in undergrad), but I know how many problems are out there that remain unaddressed.
And there are some things which are simply too large in scale for anybody except the government to take on. Giving health insurance to children in poor families is one example, or a foodstamp program.
I have more faith in the government to help out the poor than I do for private individuals to help the poor, as bad as that sounds. I just know when it comes down to it, most people never do volunteer work or even contribute that much to charities. But I do have a great deal of respect for corporations who go out of their way to do so. Hell, even Wal-Mart does a lot for how soulless of a corporation they are.
|
1) Foodbanks. Foodbanks are more efficient then Foodstamps because you know for a fact that money goes for food... and it covers inflation and other problems foodstamps have.
Foodbanks infact is the private sector answer to the great inadequecies of the foodstamp program. For example Foodbanks can provide more nutriotious food, as people tend to donate healthier foods then what people buy with Foodstamps.
Often times people with Foodstamps tend to use them to buy there food, instead of increase how much money they spend on their food to get healthy alternatives.
Instead of getting for example, healthy fruits vegetables and meats... plenty of people get the same ramen and other stuff they would otherwise get and entertainment stuff.
2) I agree with you on national healthcare. Though that i see more as a "good for the country" initative then any sort of charity. Government run healthcare means Buisnesses don't have to offer Healthcare. Which means American goods don't have a hidden "Healthcare Tariff" that other products don't have... and healthy workers are good for the country.
However i wouldn't be surprised if something like a Comprehensive Free Clinic system could work. Giving doctors and others tax breaks for doing charity work. That's the way government should be pushing charity work. By offering tax breaks and other incentives, not by taking money by legislative force.
