English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"

2007-11-06 08:19:41 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

7 answers

This question presumes we have income redistribution from the rich to the poor. We don't. 1% of the taxes we pay go to direct aid to the poor. 80% of those receiving aid are children. The total for Education, training and all social services is about 3%. Add to that medicaid and it is about 13%

So at most, 13% of the taxes you pay are given to other people in need. On average people pay about 15% of their income in taxes. So the government is robbing you of about 2% of your income to give to the poor. Big deal.

The really big items in the budget are Social Security and Medicare. That is not robbing you to pay them, as they are receiving the benefits they paid into the system to receive.

2007-11-06 09:02:08 · answer #1 · answered by jehen 7 · 1 0

Nope, too few people vote based upon their interests. Even if Peter was being robbed blind for Paul, Paul could still fall into some awkward ideological trap that would convince him to vote against his interests. Gotta pay attention to ideology. This government could have Peter and Paul's support, could have just Pauls, just Peters (weird), or even neither. It doesn't depend upon material interests, but ideology.

2007-11-06 08:24:46 · answer #2 · answered by C.S. 5 · 1 0

Totally.

2007-11-06 10:37:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

yep - untill peter moves to a tax haven like switzerland, and when paul is going hungry because there is no more of peters money to steal watch how quick paul will turn and bite the hand that once fed him

2007-11-06 08:22:35 · answer #4 · answered by eyesinthedrk 6 · 2 1

Well, if I'm Peter, and Halliburton is Paul, then yes, I agree.

2007-11-06 08:31:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

No. Paul still wants more. See w, cheney and all their corporate croneys.

2007-11-06 08:29:56 · answer #6 · answered by Tom 3 · 0 0

No. I disagree with it vehemently and all it stands for.

2007-11-06 08:23:47 · answer #7 · answered by Unsub29 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers