Occupy Wall Street protest

[starsevol]

Corperations are considered "entities" that make an income, so they would also be taxed at the same rate. Not as a "corperate" tax, but based on income like any other entity.
I also think there should be some kind of a safety net, whereas people working and earning under a certain wage would be exempt, or only taxed on what they make above a certain level.

I would also want to see huge cuts in spending, there simply is no reason for some of the programs that are in place now, including Social Security. Yes, I said it!!

I know my solution is not perfect. I am not claiming it is. But this country can't go on the way it has been. The government is taxing too much, spending too much, and spending countless hours writing laws that enslave us. And things need to change, and WILL change one way or another. It's just a matter of time.

 

[willderphil]

It"s a perfect society where everyone gets paid the same. Money for school is a form of compensation. Therefore if a paperboy doesn't go to school do tax payers simply give him his share?

No the person going to school doesn't pay for it at all it doesn't come out of their paycheck. Govt. pays for school by directly paying the things a school needs to run like professors, maintenance crews, office supplies, ect. If the paperboy decides to got to school its free because we want people to be able to easily move into higher demand jobs if he doesn't go to school then he doesn't got to school.

You don't have to drive a car. That is a choice one makes. If the gov said everyone has to buy auto insurance even if you don't drive to help bear the burden of those that do I would have the same problem with it.

But nearly everyone does use health insurance so why shouldn't everybody have it? That is why I think it is the right thing to do. If the healthcare bill said instead of mandatory health insurance that if you don't have health insurance and aren't able to pay for medical treatment upfront then you don't get health care would you agree with it?

 

[tsst]

No the person going to school doesn't pay for it at all it doesn't come out of their paycheck. Govt. pays for school by directly paying the things a school needs to run like professors, maintenance crews, office supplies, ect. If the paperboy decides to got to school its free because we want people to be able to easily move into higher demand jobs if he doesn't go to school then he doesn't got to school.

I think you missed my point. The person getting school paid for is basically recieving a form of compensation. Say it costs $60,000 for that person to go to school. Does society then give $60,000 cash to the paperboy to keep the compensation the same as you suggested should happen?

But nearly everyone does use health insurance so why shouldn't everybody have it? That is why I think it is the right thing to do. If the healthcare bill said instead of mandatory health insurance that if you don't have health insurance and aren't able to pay for medical treatment upfront then you don't get health care would you agree with it?

It may be the right thing to have health insurance but it's the wrong way to achieve it. Unconstitutionally forcing the people to purchase a service is simply wrong. We fought a revolutionary war to be free of a tyrannical government that forced its people into submission. Our forefathers wrote the constitution to protect the people from just such things happening. Today's politicians regularly ignore some parts of it and twist other parts to get what they want. Why would anyone be so ok with being forced to surrender freedom today knowing the price our forefathers paid to free us from just such tyranny? How is it ok to force part of the population to pay for those that choose not to work and buy insurance but horrifically wrong to force those individuals to work and pay for it themselves? I guess I will never understand liberal socialism but one thing is for certain there is absolutely nothing “FAIR” about it!

 

[willderphil]

How is it ok to force part of the population to pay for those that choose not to work and buy insurance but horrifically wrong to force those individuals to work and pay for it themselves? I guess I will never understand liberal socialism but one thing is for certain there is absolutely nothing “FAIR” about it![/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

The way I see it is this way. In this society there is always going to be people who don't have enough to cover basic needs. Some of those people are idiots who are lazy and don't work or are on drugs and are fine living at the bottom of society and just getting by.

Most of those people at the bottom don't want to be there though. Most of these people had circumstances in their lives that make it really hard for them to move up in the social order even when they are really trying. Maybe they were so poor growing up that at 15 they had to quit school and get a cheap job so the family doesn't get kicked out of their house again for the fifth time. If they were poor they probably went to a worse school with worse teachers then other schools and where there is more violence that they had to worry about. They probably never owned a computer or internet or even a cell phone so they are don't know how to use technology and when they do they feel embarrassed at how slow they are and how stupid they feel. When they came home from school nobody was probably home for 3-5 hours whether or not they had two parents or not. They might not even live with their parents but instead their grandma and/or grandpa because their parents are dead or in jail or on drugs. Even if the parents get home at a reasonable hour they can't help them with homework after about 4th grade. It's a good chance that their parents first language isn't English and maybe their own first language isn't English. They may have been verbally abused or beaten or molested or raped and more often then not by a member of their own family. There is a good chance that they have a mental or physical illness or a physical impairment. Extended families may live together in a small house in order to make it financially but as a result tensions are high and fights break out. When applying for a job some employers may not want to hire them because they went to the wrong school or live on the wrong side of town that has a bad reputation. I could go on but I'm stopping now.

What I'm trying to say is that it could be very difficult for these people to pull themselves out of all of that. They could be trying but there is just one obstacle after another and usually people don't make it out and not one of these problems is the fault of the individual but of their family or society or the government. Now personally I don't think that it would be "FAIR" to deny these people basic services. I also agree that it is not really fair to have someone else pay for them but I think it is more fair to make someone else pay for them then it is to not supply these people with what they need in order to survive.

 

[tsst]

The way I see it is this way. In this society there is always going to be people who don't have enough to cover basic needs. Some of those people are idiots who are lazy and don't work or are on drugs and are fine living at the bottom of society and just getting by.

Most of those people at the bottom don't want to be there though. Most of these people had circumstances in their lives that make it really hard for them to move up in the social order even when they are really trying. Maybe they were so poor growing up that at 15 they had to quit school and get a cheap job so the family doesn't get kicked out of their house again for the fifth time. If they were poor they probably went to a worse school with worse teachers then other schools and where there is more violence that they had to worry about. They probably never owned a computer or internet or even a cell phone so they are don't know how to use technology and when they do they feel embarrassed at how slow they are and how stupid they feel. When they came home from school nobody was probably home for 3-5 hours whether or not they had two parents or not. They might not even live with their parents but instead their grandma and/or grandpa because their parents are dead or in jail or on drugs. Even if the parents get home at a reasonable hour they can't help them with homework after about 4th grade. It's a good chance that their parents first language isn't English and maybe their own first language isn't English. They may have been verbally abused or beaten or molested or raped and more often then not by a member of their own family. There is a good chance that they have a mental or physical illness or a physical impairment. Extended families may live together in a small house in order to make it financially but as a result tensions are high and fights break out. When applying for a job some employers may not want to hire them because they went to the wrong school or live on the wrong side of town that has a bad reputation. I could go on but I'm stopping now.

What I'm trying to say is that it could be very difficult for these people to pull themselves out of all of that. They could be trying but there is just one obstacle after another and usually people don't make it out and not one of these problems is the fault of the individual but of their family or society or the government. Now personally I don't think that it would be "FAIR" to deny these people basic services. I also agree that it is not really fair to have someone else pay for them but I think it is more fair to make someone else pay for them then it is to not supply these people with what they need in order to survive.

There is nothing 'fair' about it. If you want to argue it being the morally correct thing to do or nice way to treat someone ok but it is not about 'fair'.

Personally I think the quickest way to correct the welfare state is to make those that get welfare work for it. Win-win, either they do something constructive for it or they stop collecting it. :shrugs:

 

[starsevol]

There is nothing 'fair' about it. If you want to argue it being the morally correct thing to do or nice way to treat someone ok but it is not about 'fair'.

Personally I think the quickest way to correct the welfare state is to make those that get welfare work for it. Win-win, either they do something constructive for it or they stop collecting it. :shrugs:

AND also pass a law that anyone convicted of a crime is shut off. No food stamps, no subsidized housing, no welfare checks. And that would include anyone sharing a residence with this person.

 

[Nova_C]

There is nothing 'fair' about it. If you want to argue it being the morally correct thing to do or nice way to treat someone ok but it is not about 'fair'.

Personally I think the quickest way to correct the welfare state is to make those that get welfare work for it. Win-win, either they do something constructive for it or they stop collecting it. :shrugs:

Such as?

And what about the disabled? The sick? A not insignificant portion of the homeless population are people who are very mentally ill and instead of helping these people we tend to throw them out. They can't hold down jobs and we don't fund enough mental hospitals to give them care.

And if someone on welfare is working for it, why would they bother looking for a job? They have one.

 

[starsevol]

Such as?

And what about the disabled? The sick? A not insignificant portion of the homeless population are people who are very mentally ill and instead of helping these people we tend to throw them out. They can't hold down jobs and we don't fund enough mental hospitals to give them care.

And if someone on welfare is working for it, why would they bother looking for a job? They have one.

I think it would depend on the degree of the disability. I know someone personally who survived brain cancer, but now has the mind of a four year old. This person collects 2 checks a month. This person also has an expensive nicotine addiction, and goes out to eat in restaurants at least 2 times a week. He is also wildly inappropriate and is always talking about the hookers he hires on the weekends. This person is also as strong physically as an ox and works under the table for a landscaping company.

I don't like knowing that I am paying for this person's cigarettes and hookers, and restaurant meals that I can't afford myself.

/And what about the person who is physically disabled but sharp as a tack that can do computer work or filing?

As far as not looking for work because they already had one, as long as "the people" are getting something back from these recipients in the form of work, that is just fine with me anyway.

 

[tsst]

Such as?

And what about the disabled? The sick? A not insignificant portion of the homeless population are people who are very mentally ill and instead of helping these people we tend to throw them out. They can't hold down jobs and we don't fund enough mental hospitals to give them care.

And if someone on welfare is working for it, why would they bother looking for a job? They have one.

Seriously?!?! 99.999999% (my number IMHO) of people can work.

Steven Hawking is employed!

 

[Nova_C]

That would suggest that the government become the default employer. I thought you wanted less government, not more? If the government took over employing all the unemployed, and created work programs to actually make that work more than just 'busy-work', the bureauocracy would expand significantly.

 

[starsevol]

You might have a point if unemployment and welfare were the same thing.
As it is now, allowing lifers on the public dole who do nothing for it, and some have criminal records on top of all that, that needs to end.

 

[Forcedexile]

Seriously?!?! 99.999999% (my number IMHO) of people can work.

Steven Hawking is employed!

Steven hawking is also quite a bit smarter than anyone on the planet.

 

[tsst]

That would suggest that the government become the default employer. I thought you wanted less government, not more? If the government took over employing all the unemployed, and created work programs to actually make that work more than just 'busy-work', the bureauocracy would expand significantly.

As Bethany stated I am not talking about the unemployed. I am referring to those already employed by the government but are simply doing zilch for their paycheck.

Steven hawking is also quite a bit smarter than anyone on the planet.

Steven Hawking was merely an example intended to show that disability doesn't equate to utter inability.

I had this discussion for example on another site. The individual was receiving disability for a spinal injury (limited use of legs). She did nothing but collect the check. I asked why she didn't work and her reply was because she got the free check and she couldn't do physical work. At that point in time she was one of the heaviest posters on the site so I ask why she didn't look into an online job like remote IT etc as she was already online for 10-12 hrs a day (her estimate). Long story short it was simply easier for her to cash the check than to actually do something to earn it.
:shrugs:

 

[Michael823]

I definitely see what you mean, as far as everyone having some strengths that they can possibly be employed for, regardless of disability. However, jobs are hard enough to find as is, let alone if you have a disability that limits what you're able to do.

I was lucky enough to find a job back in early July, and I am definitely glad to have found it. I actually love getting up and going to work, socializing with customers, and having money in my pocket that I earn. But it's only part time, and I've had a lot of trouble finding anything more than that. And I definitely can't live off of the hours that I get when I'm taking home about $7 an hour. Even if I was lucky enough to get full time, I'd still have trouble being able to live off of it. Again, not complaining, and not making excuses, because I love having a job (even if only part time).

So while I hear you that we all have something to offer, it is incredibly difficult, as a person with a disability, to find sustainable work. There's a lot of competition for jobs as is, and having physical limitations makes it that much more difficult.

 

[tsst]

I definitely see what you mean, as far as everyone having some strengths that they can possibly be employed for, regardless of disability. However, jobs are hard enough to find as is, let alone if you have a disability that limits what you're able to do.

I was lucky enough to find a job back in early July, and I am definitely glad to have found it. I actually love getting up and going to work, socializing with customers, and having money in my pocket that I earn. But it's only part time, and I've had a lot of trouble finding anything more than that. And I definitely can't live off of the hours that I get when I'm taking home about $7 an hour. Even if I was lucky enough to get full time, I'd still have trouble being able to live off of it. Again, not complaining, and not making excuses, because I love having a job (even if only part time).

So while I hear you that we all have something to offer, it is incredibly difficult, as a person with a disability, to find sustainable work. There's a lot of competition for jobs as is, and having physical limitations makes it that much more difficult.

Michael823, I commend you for making the effort. I understand jobs are tough to find in today's economy (due to our wonderful politicians but that's another thread). My point was that aside from the down economy most everyone is employable but many simply choose not to be employed.

 

[Forcedexile]

ehh this is such a touchy subject....I don't want to dabble in another controversial subject right now.

 

[tsst]

ehh this is such a touchy subject....I don't want to dabble in another controversial subject right now.

Your opinion is always welcome if you change your mind.

 

[starsevol]

I think it is more fun when he says what he thinks, and I can sit here and scratch my head and think, "How can someone really think that?".

It gets ME thinking that my position is not the only one. Then I think about it, and realize that I am STILL right!

 

[tsst]

$1.2 million dollar house on the lakefront, chiropractor husband that drives a Jag, world travel. Sounds like the good life. That is until you hear for eight years she has been getting a $1200/month housing voucher, disability checks, and food stamps. :headbang:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...ient-lives-million-dollar-home-161252749.html

I know this is a fraud case but... I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that had she been required to pick up trash along the highway for her checks she may have opted to just have her Dr husband pay the house and grocery bills. :shrugs:

 

[willderphil]

$1.2 million dollar house on the lakefront, chiropractor husband that drives a Jag, world travel. Sounds like the good life. That is until you hear for eight years she has been getting a $1200/month housing voucher, disability checks, and food stamps. :headbang:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...ient-lives-million-dollar-home-161252749.html

I know this is a fraud case but... I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that had she been required to pick up trash along the highway for her checks she may have opted to just have her Dr husband pay they house and grocery bills. :shrugs:

I know someone who works for a doctor (a psychiatrist) who is both crooked and cheap. I know that he charges people's insurance both for a regular consultation and also a medication consultation when if you have a regular one they are supposed to be together. If the insurance companies won't pay for both on the same day he charges the medication one for the next day even though he doesn't even talk to the patient on those days. Also he has different prices depending on what insurance you have. People who have TriCare AKA military insurance get charged the most because they never ask questions about anything. I don't know exactly how much he makes but he just bought a house in a gated community for over a million dollars. Yet both of his two employees make less then $10 an hour and they are only part time 24 hour a week jobs and gets mad if he has to pay them more then usually because they had to stay late.