Should benefits that require contributions and benefits based on need continue or change? An entitlement is a government-provided benefit to which a person or group is legally entitled, which cannot be revoked, except by a change in the law. Types of benefit distribution includes:
1. Direct spending: the government sends funds direct to qualified persons.
Example: The government provides funds to pay for expenses.
2. Tax expenditures (tax breaks): a person’s taxes (or the income on which he pays taxes) are reduced.
Example, expenses can be deducted from income, and in turn, the taxable income total is lowered.
3. Subsidies: The government pays a portion of the cost of some good or service.
Example, the State tax revenue pays a portion of the cost for students to attend Community college to keep tuition cost low.
2006-11-27 04:06:53 · 4 answers · asked by Daniel C 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's a good thing.
Thank you very much, while you're up!
2006-11-27 04:11:14 · answer #1 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Entitlements must be judged on a case to case basis.
Many programs are inherently imperfect and need to be fine-tuned occasionally. Imperfections are not an excuse to kill social programs.
Example: School taxes are payed by households that haven't had a school-age child in residence for many, many years. Why should senior citizens pay school taxes when their children graduated 20 years ago and are living in another state? Why do single people pay school taxes.?
The only fair tax is a user tax. But the users of welfare programs can't afford to pay a tax...........
In summation, life is not fair - been that way forever, ain't gonna change. Deal with it.
2006-11-27 12:55:48 · answer #2 · answered by Huero 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll look at what one writer of the Constitution says:
"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison
Hmmm..... this seems to say that the federal government has no right to do this, per one of the major authors of the Constitution.
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. ... I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." -- Grover Cleveland
And, this sentiment and beleif was still true almost 100 years later.
So, what changed?
Where's the amendment to the Constitution that allows spending of public monies on charity? The 10th Amendments says that what is NOT specifically defined in the Constitution as a government duty is either reserved for the states or the people. This means that if it's not in the Constitution or the Amendments, it is illegal for the the federal government to do.
So, where is the Amendment allowing all this charitable spending?
2006-11-27 12:22:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe the government that enacts the entitlements should pay for them.
There are federal entitlements to illegals that are costing states a bunch of money they do not want to spend on criminals.
Subsidies that promote the general welfare are all well and good, but pendulums swing, and what was "good" yesterday may well not be "good" tomorrow.
2006-11-27 12:17:29 · answer #4 · answered by whoknew 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋