Everyone gets what they pay for. Want to get more services, earn more. Want to make social security your retirement instead of just a supplement, earn more. Want more unemployment, stay employed longer.
What is unfair about that?
2007-05-28 03:26:38 · 8 answers · asked by WJ 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Never happen. Income redistribution is the cornerstone of the entire leftist philosophy. If their clientele ever sees the fallacy of the argument they are out of business.
2007-05-28 03:30:24 · answer #1 · answered by RP McMurphy 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Social security is not a hand out. It is your money. True, too much has been promised and that needs to be corrected (by promising less, not taxing more) but who among you, Liberal or Conservative is going to be satisfied with less than promised when they need or just want it? By the way, the average SS benefit today is about $1100/mo. I don't know too many people who could live off just that so it seems that it is a supplement.
But your logic escapes me. How are government services (roads, infrastructure, public health, education, law enforcement, etc.) a redistribution of wealth? How does your call to go out and earn more do anything about paying for more of those services?
Going back to logic, who wants unemployment and why would staying employed longer achieve that? Either you are talking about unemployment compensation, or you meant to say "less unemployment". But here again, how does this amount to a redistribution of wealth? Unemployment insurance is just that - insurance. It is paid for by businesses and goes to people who have lost their job through no fault of their own. I will bet that just about everyone collecting unemployment would rather be working.
2007-05-28 10:49:47 · answer #2 · answered by jehen 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
OK,but before we start making any deals,let's talk to the retiree living on a fixed income who needs to decide if they buy medication or eat at the end of the month.
Or the divorced mother working two jobs and sixty hours a week just so she can maintain a level of poverty.
Then let's talk to the the CEO who makes three thousand times more than his lowest worker and ask him if he cares.
Do you really believe that you are immune from the eventuality that's going to hit ANYONE that's not earning $150,000 a year and up?!
We are heading for third world status with the quickness!
2007-05-28 10:47:19 · answer #3 · answered by Robert J W 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you cut out corporate welfare, tax subsidies for corporations and, tax cuts for the rich. It is a deal.
I support a flat tax rate for everyone across the board. Individuals and companies alike.
2007-05-28 10:42:52 · answer #4 · answered by SlickWillie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your turn: Cons drop wacky social conservatism, and you got a deal.
2007-05-28 10:41:53 · answer #5 · answered by ck4829 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Works for me , but Wealth Distribution is their only Reason
for existence.
2007-05-28 10:31:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
As soon as you get rid of the ridiculous notion that only people on the left use social services, we'll talk.
2007-05-28 10:31:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
This is perfect! Thanks for saying it!
2007-05-28 10:57:59 · answer #8 · answered by Dan 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋