Why are employed people punished with an income tax and unemployed people get rewarded w/ free money handouts?

Question

And why do both political parties allow this to go on? What should be done?

Answer 1

Send me your money and I'll tell you how.

Answer 2

I was employed once. Had 2 jobs. My wife had one. But together? We still weren't making enough to make ends meet.

Should we both have been punished for that?

But then we lost our jobs due to 9/11 and we haven't worked since.

During that time, we went through unemployment training, posted job resumes, but nothing was going through.

We finally realized that the job scene was a lot more tougher than we first believed. And there was little we could do to change that.

So we got on housing, I got my disability checks back from before I worked (since I am legally disabled), and well here I am now.

Unfortunately, my disability checks were only recently cut by $115 because of those jobs I worked 6 years ago--and it's making it all that much harder to make ends meet. (Even more so--since the cost of renting has gone up three-fold in the last 4 years.)

Should we be punished still for not being able to find work all this time?

Where exactly do you draw the line of distinction between those who have a job and those who are struggling to make ends meet working those jobs?

And those people lucky enough to receive assistance when they need it the most?

You seem to believe that the latter are the ones who are at fault, and those who worked are the *victims*.

Well, gee, I dunno here...you try and lose your job and see where it lands YOU.

Go ahead. Find out what it's like. And then come back to me with the results.

Answer 3

Clearly a hypothetical question. No one wishes to punish success in this country. Raising taxes from 36% to 39%, for example, is not excessive. 39% was the tax rate under Clinton. When Bush decided to lower this tax rate, McCain voted against it. Similarly, no one wishes to reward sloth. The vast majority of people who are on welfare (what you must consider to be "Free Money"), don't want to be on it for long. Most of them are proud people that just need a little help. If you reward the rich with all the benefits, and the poor with nothing, what do you get? You get Russia in 1917.

Answer 4

In the USA, it works like this.

Since the first day you got a paycheck, some of that went into a state run insurance fund in likelihood you lost your job sometime in your working career.

That income, when withdrawn, is subject to income tax.

I know, the second time I received unemployment for a few months 2 years ago, that income was taxed at the federal level.

=========
In an economic downturn, such as a resession or depression, it gives people at least some money to live off of. That is why, when the economy does not respond fast enough, unemployment is often extended, under Reps and Dems.

There are three things that people need.
#1 a roof over their heads
#2 food on the table
#3 safety.

Take away any of the above in mass and the people will take to the streets.

Unemployment insurance, is thus good to preserve the state.
============

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 5

You're suggesting instead that employed people should be rewarded with free money handouts that they don't need and that unemployed people be punished with an income tax on the income that they don't have?

If you're frustrated with the way this works and think life is better for the unemployed, then by all means quit your job and go on welfare. I'll accept the taxes, because it means that my skills are valuable and being put to use.

Answer 6

When I see questions like this I see jealousy. I work hard for my money, so I assume most other people do too. I've lived on social security and SSI I believed there were good reasons for this, I wasn't trying to scam anyone and I got off benfits as soon as I could. If you'd rather get your money for free then go for it. It may be harder to get than you think.

Answer 7

Because its better than the alternative. Laisez-faire, law of the jungle, big fish eat small fish, unrestricted capitalism leads to the rich getting richer and the poor poorer.

Over the years, people have figured out that by investing in education, state subsidized universities, student grants, subsidized loans, job training, GI Bills, temporary unemployment insurance, etc, etc you can help the little guy work his way up.

It's better to spend money on that than more lawyers, policeman, and prisons.

Answer 8

Its not a matter of being punished, If yer making money your required to pay some of it and if yer unemployeed then you get money to get a job then pay the income tax

Answer 9

Because the democratic party puts out propaganda saying that those who don't work, don't because they can't.

EDIT:

You said "Because its better than the alternative. Laisez-faire, law of the jungle, big fish eat small fish, capitalism leads to the rich getting richer and the poor poorer"

Really? Taking from those who earn and giving to those who don't earn, is better than people getting what they deserve?

Poor people get poorer only because they don't work hard enough. I know, because a decade ago, I was well below the poverty line. I worked hard, and now I'm in the middle of the middle class, and moving up.

Answer 10

Unemployed are given free money? LOL.....You lose your job and you will see that it's not as great as you think.

Answer 11

Listen for the last time. You can not be both liberal and Conservative. Pick a side or you will fall on the fence and get hurt.