The reason why I hate The Abusers of the System

[ginnyfizz]

At the end of the day, why should other people you don't even know know pay for your situation or anyone else's for that matter? If they volunteered that is fine but otherwise I don't see how it is feasable.

 

You completely fail to acknowledge that, in fact, if you fall into the category of person who normally works but then gets made redundant and has to claim, then (in the UK) your benefit is initially assessed ON YOUR OWN National Insurance Contributions. You will have paid plenty into the system yourself. Should you have the misfortune to be out of work for more than six months, then you will be means tested as to whether you continue to get your benefit.

 

Voluntary simply does not come into it, in Britain NI contributions are compulsory if you are above the threshhold and are deducted at source if you are an employee.

[SpellAndShield]

At the end of the day, why should other people you don't even know know pay for your situation or anyone else's for that matter? If they volunteered that is fine but otherwise I don't see how it is feasable.

 

You completely fail to acknowledge that, in fact, if you fall into the category of person who normally works but then gets made redundant and has to claim, then (in the UK) your benefit is initially assessed ON YOUR OWN National Insurance Contributions. You will have paid plenty into the system yourself. Should you have the misfortune to be out of work for more than six months, then you will be means tested as to whether you continue to get your benefit.

 

Voluntary simply does not come into it, in Britain NI contributions are compulsory if you are above the threshhold and are deducted at source if you are an employee.

 

I aware they are compulsory and that is the problem to begin with but that is another discussion for another time.

[marharth]

Sorry, that is ridiculous. People have a right to keep what they earn, the more they keep, the more just it is and how is letting people keep more of the money they have worked for welfare? Ridiculous.

Wasn't going to reply to this but since you brought this up, ill tell you what I told grewaste in a pm.

 

Tax cuts have to be made up somehow. You don't get cut taxes then have the money the person was supposed to pay in taxes magically appear. If you cut taxes to certain groups, other groups have to pay for it. You do realize if someone does not pay all the taxes they normally would, the taxes are made up by other groups, or through spending cuts that effect other groups?

 

The reason tax cuts go in with the welfare system as discussed in this topic is because certain spending programs sometimes need to be cut to make up for tax cuts. That includes cutting social security and welfare programs.

 

My point is that it would help all entitlement programs do better if we stopped doing some of the economics that have failed time and time again.

Edited September 24, 2011 by marharth

[SpellAndShield]

Sorry, that is ridiculous. People have a right to keep what they earn, the more they keep, the more just it is and how is letting people keep more of the money they have worked for welfare? Ridiculous.

Wasn't going to reply to this but since you brought this up, ill tell you what I told grewaste in a pm.

 

Tax cuts have to be made up somehow. You don't get cut taxes then have the money the person was supposed to pay in taxes magically appear. If you cut taxes to certain groups, other groups have to pay for it. You do realize if someone does not pay all the taxes they normally would, the taxes are made up by other groups, or through spending cuts that effect other groups?

 

The reason tax cuts go in with the welfare system as discussed in this topic is because certain spending programs sometimes need to be cut to make up for tax cuts. That includes cutting social security and welfare programs.

 

My point is that it would help all entitlement programs do better if we stopped doing some of the economics that have failed time and time again.

 

You really have to jump through hoops to explain this.

[HeyYou]

Sorry, that is ridiculous. People have a right to keep what they earn, the more they keep, the more just it is and how is letting people keep more of the money they have worked for welfare? Ridiculous.

Wasn't going to reply to this but since you brought this up, ill tell you what I told grewaste in a pm.

 

Tax cuts have to be made up somehow. You don't get cut taxes then have the money the person was supposed to pay in taxes magically appear. If you cut taxes to certain groups, other groups have to pay for it. You do realize if someone does not pay all the taxes they normally would, the taxes are made up by other groups, or through spending cuts that effect other groups?

 

The reason tax cuts go in with the welfare system as discussed in this topic is because certain spending programs sometimes need to be cut to make up for tax cuts. That includes cutting social security and welfare programs.

 

My point is that it would help all entitlement programs do better if we stopped doing some of the economics that have failed time and time again.

 

You really have to jump through hoops to explain this.

 

Not really. Look at Michigan. Corporations got tax cuts. How did the state pay for it? By taxing pension incomes...... give the rich guys tax breaks, and finance it on the backs of retired people. "Budget" includes both expenses, AND income. If you cut income from one area, you have to make up for it by increasing income from another area, or, cutting expenses. What are the favorite programs to cut? Police, Fire, and programs to help the poor, and lets not forget infrastructure spending....... Have you noticed that the roads have been getting progressively worse over the last decade or so?

[kvnchrist]

I remember, awhile back I was talking to a postal worker and was told that they various departments have a set budget, which goes up incrementally from year to year. I was also told if any department doesn't spend their total allotment for the year, Next years budget, for that department gets cut, that amount. What do you guys think. Is this system force departments to waste money, in order for them to get their full allotment of our tax money? Is this abuse at the highest levels?

 

Heck, I just heard about The Justice Dept. having muffins at a dinner that cost the taxpayer something like $16.00 a piece. The left and the right are fighting over grand ma getting a walker, while these guys are munching down $20. per mouthful. I think we are looking in the wrong direction, for the cuts we need.

[Ritherdon]

I always encourage everyone I enter a discussion about welfare and other social programs with to go back and review the 4 Rs of taxation, because it all comes down to economics.

 

For those of you who are not familiar with the 4 Rs, they are as follows.

 

The main purposes of all taxation are:

 

1) Revenue. Raise money to spend on armies, roads, schools and hospitals, and on more indirect government functions like market regulation and legal systems.

2) Redistribution. Normally, this means transferring wealth from the richer sections of society to poorer sections.

3) Repricing. Taxes are levied to address "sinful" enterprises; for example, tobacco, alcohol and usury has been heavily taxed historically to both discourage them while bringing in extra revenue.

4) Representation.

 

The fourth and final R is the most important in the context of this debate, because it relates directly to the topic. The American revolutionary slogan "no taxation without representation" implied that rulers tax citizens, and citizens demand accountability from their rulers in return. The more peaceful elements of society will always criticize military spending because it draws funds away from aid programs (including welfare), but also from education, urban redevelopment and revitalization, public transportation, daycare, parks and recreation, and other hallmarks of a progressive society. Hawks and fiscal conservatives, those who believe in the virtues of rampant capitalism, military might, and aggressive domestic and foreign policies justify military spending by pinning it as a capital concern, and are convinced that the private sector (which drives a capitalist infrastructure) should dictate the economic and social direction of the nation.

 

In other words, the debate that is playing out here is a flawless example of why the American democracy is such a "revolutionary" endeavor; whoever gets the most votes will forge the path ahead, and that means spending the taxpayer's money on the things that get those votes. Personally, I never put much stake in fiscal conservatism, because it inevitably leads to ballooning debt and lax regulation, which is what ultimately ends up burying a population in financial woes. And for those who blame this administration or even the last one, seriously, this issue has spanned decades and has endured through countless Republican and Democratic eras of governance. It's the same circus, but we have a whole new generation of clowns performing in it.

 

Should we throw out the entire support system and bring in something more secure, or revamp the system we have?

The reality is that in a nation of close to 400 million people, the current system can not simply be discarded. Revamping the system is going to be expensive. You'll have to raise more taxes in order to strengthen recording processes, provide a kind of support that does not simply sustain the current standard of living for those in need because that just passes the problem on to the next generation, and prevent a rapid decrease in welfare payments. If the system is altered in such a way that less wealth is being funneled into the lower class of society, their standard of living decreases, which decreases the standard of living for the wealthy as well, because they coexist within the same national framework. The US has its work cut out for it.