dems: why is it greedy to want to keep my money instead of sending it to Washington?

Question

Since I plan to give much of it to charity anyway, what is wrong with preferring more efficient private charities?

Answer 1

First off, private charities are not more efficient. Did you know that only 5 cents to the dollar is the average amount per charity that actually gets to the end cause...

Secondly, we all have to pay taxes... so why should you be any different.

Third, if you are someone that has reaped the rewards of this great society, then why not pay higher taxes to put it back into that society that you gained off of... seriously, if you don't want to put back into the society that gave you great wealth then go to another country that has more equal pay for equal hours worked.

Let me clarify what I am saying exactly because I have to spell things out like I am talking to a 5 year old to some ppl. I am saying that the average wage in this country is 30k per year; therefore, if you are DIS-proportionally reaping a higher reward and have gained great wealth from this capitalist system, you must pay a DIS-proportional higher tax.

It is that simple. People that have been lucky enough to use our system to get rich annoy my soul on this subject. Our capitalist system allows 10% of society to get rich while 80% remains poor. Yet, the ones that gain the wealth expect to use the system in this way then not pay a higher rate... I don't understand that depth of greed in a person's heart.

Oh and in case your mind is thinking hard work has gained you wealth therefore you somehow deserve it more, let me correct you: 90% of the richest ppl in this country, accrued their wealth through inheritance. BUT ok, let's talk about hard work... what about all the ppl that worked hard all their life only to see it disappear later.. the ppl that did everything right... they worked hard everyday, some 7 days a week, only to see their job go overseas or a Wal-Mart open in their town to make their small business go under. I have known ppl like this.

And as I said before, if you don't want to pay a higher tax rate now that you have been 'lucky' enough to gain riches, by all means please move to a country that has equal pay for equal hours worked. That way, you can get your flat tax that is a set amount of percentage based on time worked. I think that is fair. Of course you will have to surrender being more wealthy than others but you seem to be striving for fairness and this way, you will get it.

Answer 2

First of all, most private charities are even less efficient than the government social programs. Hard to believe, but deplorably true.

Second, private charities do not address some areas that are critical. They cannot, for example, effectively provide the kind of job training resources and institutions that are desperaely needed to break the cycle of poverty in the only way it can really be broken--by providing a comprehensive support program that will bring a person to the point where they no longer NEED charity.

Look, we have a number of problems in this country on this score. One is that "liberals" tend to see things onl y in terms of social programs and paternalism. Conservatives (real ones, not the neocons, who don't help anyone but themselves) over-focus on private/individual solutions. The truth is, we need both.

And we don't have that today. In the past, when we have public and private working together, we get outstanding results. Seperate, and you get bloated government bureaucracy on the one hand, and underfunded, overwhelmed, or woefully inefficient private programs on the other.

Here's an example of what WORKED: During WW2 it became clear that a massive number of veterans would return--millions of men whose educations had been interrupted--potentially a devastating burden to the economy, especially as war production was decreased.

A social program--the GI Bill--was the answer. It was not conservative--and it was not liberal; it was a synthesis of both. It provided guaranteed home loans--but the individual was still responsible for paying off those loans and private firms built the houses. It provided government-funded education--but the individual still had to do the studying and make the grades--and the government was not allowed to tell the schools how or what to teach. And, contrary to the doom-saying of the ultra-conservaties of the time, those loans were paid off at rates better than the national average. Those "freeloading students" who went back to school instead of "getting a real job" did BETTER academically than the traditional students--and became the hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists, teachers, and other professionals that fueled America's post-war expansion.

Left to the liberals, the GI Bill would have ended as another government giveaway doing little good. Left to the conservatives, it would never have been implemented--because they didn't see any reason why "teir" tax money should be "wasted" on a bunch of social programs.

I t would be interestig to see which private charities you are so eager to support. I'd bet at least one-and probably more--actually deliver (in actual benefits) less than a third of the money you give them. If you are talking about some of the most well known--like the Red Cross--the rate is even worse. Even the government programs do better.

My point isn't that its either/or. Its that we need BOTH--private and public--but we need them done RIGHT. Otherwise, its a waste of money--and then t really doesn'tmatter, because nothing gets done. Which--today--is mostly what happens.

Answer 3

I'm not a Dem, so perhaps your question isn't to me. I agree that less government is often better, but I dispute that "free market" forces will handle all public problems. Likewise, private charities can not address, or at least DO not address, all social ills.
By way of analogy, I have no problem with my children living at my house without paying a portion of their allowance as "income tax" but I expect other input. They have chores that help keep the house in order and running conveniently to all. I make only a portion of the of the laundry, so I expect some help in dealing with it as a whole, just as I expect help with shopping, meal preparation, dishes, vacuuming, and yard work.

Unless you are going out to maintain the infrastructure yourself, charity is only part of the problem. Taxes go to required services as well.

One fellow answerer asks, "Why don't dems get that my money is MY money." Well, because he benefits from the common good, and, as a matter of conscience, he must help to provide for it.

Answer 4

Money from taxes sent to Washington goes to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

I don't know if it is greedy, but it is tremendously short sighted to fail to pay for these services.

A "fair tax" is anything but fair: two people who buy $100 worth of groceries pay the same amount in taxes, even if one of them earns $100 per week and the other $1000. I understand the advantage of bringing the cash economy above the table, but with that addressed properly, the advantages of a national sales tax are almost nonexistent. Sales taxes like the so called "fair tax" are the most regressive because the ratio of tax to income is hugely out of proportion when a person earns little. In the example of $100 worth of groceries, a 5% tax would be 5 of 100 dollars, or truly 5%, but for the fellow who earns $1000, that tax rate is only .5% of his income. Those most able to pay would be asked to pay the least proportionally.

A "flat tax," on the other hand, is a PERCENTAGE of income that doesn't vary--no loop holes, no special rates, no shelters, no write-offs. If you earn $100, you pay a percentage. If you earn $1000, you pay more, but at the same exact rate. Those most able to pay will pay more, but at the same rate proportionally.

Answer 5

Not sure why the little people would complain either way, they dont provide much in life but for themselves and when they cant have the stupid F-150 or that new plasma TV they ***** and moan at the success of others. As far as the charity goes, I prefer to do the job myself...I dont even trust my pockets with my money and if people keep calling my investsments greed then so be it....my family is taken care of. Ever heard the story of the grasshopper and the ant?

Answer 6

Because you should be paying for the War and Occupation of Iraq, and having military bases all over the place, since you are a Bush supporter (I don't think you are a Ron Paul supporter?)

Answer 7

Are you saying that you aren't going to ay your taxes? That is most certainly greedy. Your loyalty belongs to your country and if you dont want to be loyal to your country, then you can just go live in the middle of the ocean somewhere or antarctica, where there will be no civilisation for you to not pay your taxes to. You won't have any of the things that your taxes pay for.

So you chose to live in a wealthy country but you don't want to do anything to contribute to it.

Answer 8

It's amazing to me how liberals refuse to understand this point. They cannot fathom that my money belongs to me. To the lady that stated I should return my money to "society", are you kidding me?

This is not about me paying taxes, this is about me paying an unfair proportion. The fair tax is all about everyone paying the same amount. No deductions. No high dollar accountants. No loop holes.

Answer 9

I agree it would be better for you to give your money to private charities instead of it having to go to Iraq and Halliburton. Good point.

Answer 10

WTH does dems have to do with it. Abolish the IRS and income tax. Still we will have to pay taxes of a different sort