posted on February 9, 2001 01:47:55 PM new
I agree with rosiebud and njrazd.
What's the incentive to make more money if it's only going to be taken away at a disproportionate level by the government? We don't live in a socialist society, we live in a capitalist one. I'm not rich, but I hope to be financially comfortable one day and when that happens I want to keep much of what I've worked for, and to not be penalized for success.
Opportunity is open to everyone in this country. You can choose to take advantage of it or not, and of course there's some luck involved too.
Shoshanah, I'm sorry to hear about your ordeal with your health and the government. One thing that's infinitely more imporant than material wealth is one's health. I'd give up every chance to live a financially rich life if it would mean I could be guaranteed to live a healthy one.
posted on February 9, 2001 01:53:46 PM new
Sosh ~
When Reagan was governor, he tried to ABOLISH SSDI payments to the permanemntly disable...
Umm.. SSDI is/was part of the state government? You are talking about Social Security Disability Insurance, right? I thought that has always been part of the federal programs. If so, how can a governor try to abolish it? *very confused now by the sudden twist.. lol*
posted on February 9, 2001 02:18:10 PM new
Color me confused. Bush wants to give some money back, and you're complaining? Depending on who you believe, the numbers vary as to how much we will actually see or be able to spend. Either way, it's a reduction and not a tax increase. There are many people who will disagree with everything a President does, simply based on which political party they happen to belong to. That's the same as cutting of your nose to spite your face, and it's not a very mature way to think.
You don't happen to be Republican or Conservative? Fine, but you can't discount every single thing a Republican politician tries to do. There is no way that any of them, Democrat or Republican alike is 100% right or wrong. Good ideas come from both sides. Admitting that shouldn't be so hard for reasonable people.
We are one of those middle income families with kids. If all this tax break benefits our family is $120 or $200, I'll take it. We only have one child left that qualifies for the extra $500 credit, my third son turns 17 this year, so we don't get to claim it for him for our 2001 taxes. If they double it for my remaining child, that is $1000 taken directly off of my tax liability for 2001. That will make a huge difference for us, and for many more with more kids. If we don't see the entire amount right away, I'll enjoy even a small increase, because it does make a difference.
Do I begrudge the rich because they see more benefit? Why should I? I know a couple of wealthy families. They have worked hard to get where they are, and are taxed much more then I am. Their money wasn't handed to them, they struggled and did without when raising their families. They are running local businesses that keep people working, which helps everyone.
Am I jealous? Nope, just trying to learn some of their secrets.
posted on February 9, 2001 03:26:00 PM new
Why don't we do this:
Everyone who opposes the tax cut, tell Uncle to keep it. Everyone who wants the tax cut, ask for the share from the ones who do not want the cut. $120, $240, whatever, it's my money, and I would rather get it and use it then letting the Government have it.
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on February 9, 2001 03:37:39 PM new
RainyBear, I'm the same way.. I'm a republican who's pro-choice and believes a lot of what Meya said .. neither republicans nor democrats are 100% right. I think there's a lot of Americans who are the same way.. the can fall on one side of one issue, and fall on the other side of another issue. I don't think it's anything to worry about.. *L*
[ edited by rosiebud on Feb 9, 2001 03:39 PM ]
posted on February 9, 2001 04:18:55 PM new LindaK,
Well femme - (saying jokingly here) what's the matter with you? Not keeping up with the Jones's (your neighbors)? How can they afford a garage full of nice cars, and you have only the bumper?
Because they're Republicans and we are Democrats?
Oh, and I asked my Volvo, Rose, if she was offended by being referred to as "only a bumper"? She was.
(All in good fun...just trying to add a little humor to an otherwise heavy thread.)
posted on February 9, 2001 04:51:45 PM newrosiebud...Yes, you are correct...It IS part of the Federal Government. But Reagan decided that there was too much abuse, by people feigning long-term illness, and he decided to weed out the "fraudulent claims"....Except that, in the process of clearing out a small percentage of fraudulent claims, he also managed to disavow very LEGITIMATE CLAIMS.
*very confused now by the sudden twist.. lol*
...I can assure you that I never saw anything humorous while I was fighting for my life.
********
Gosh Shosh!
posted on February 10, 2001 08:57:07 AM new
Shos~
Perhaps you can explain to me, how a state governor can rewrite federal law such as that which governers the Social Security Administration. I think, perhaps, you are blaming the wrong person.
SSDI (for those that don't know what this one is) is for people who have worked and contributed to the social security system and have become unable to work for an extended period of time, due to illness or injury. The only real definition that exists for this is "inability to perform meaningful and gainful employment" (or thereabouts). The only definition that actually exists to define any disability is for blindness.
The doctors that Social Security uses are relics. *Most* of the time, they use prehistoric methods of determining a person's disability. These methods may have been state of the art, 20-30 years ago, but in today's society, they leave a lot to be desired. BECAUSE of these methods, many people are turned down. Your own doctor's opinions is only considered "supporting evidence", but it's the doctors who are on Social Security's payroll who have the most say about if you're considered "disabled".
So, you've got to prove that you're unable to work due to your disability. You've got to prove this to a doctor who is most likely using prehistoric methods of determining your disability. And you've got to prove that your illness is causing a disability.
That's the failure of the federal government, than it is of a state governor.
posted on February 10, 2001 09:31:53 AM new
krs ~ She's the one that says it's SSDI and a federal program.. That's why I asked for clarification and wondering how the heck a governor has anything to do with making decisions with a federal program. I can only assume that she knows what programs she applied for and what programs she's talking about. *shrug*
posted on February 12, 2001 11:08:35 AM newrosiebud wrote: Anyone here, who is complaining about the amount of the $ that they could be getting back, has every opportunity to change their income level. My dad told me that if I wanted to go to college, I was going to have to work and go at the same time. I worked full time, raised a family and went to school full time. Because of that, I raised myself to the next level. It wasn't easy, but I did it. Why can't Joe Schmoe, who lives on the next block over, do the same thing.. rather than sit and complain about the rich paying the same % of taxes or getting the same % back?
I understand where you're coming from--I really do. But one can't just connect the dots to success anymore, and it's too simplistic to claim that every person who's struggling financially has only him or herself to blame. There is a widening gulf between the incomes of the extremely wealthy and those at the other end of the spectrum. We have CEOs taking bigger and bigger slices of the pie for themselves and paying the people who work for them less and less. You can get a degree and apply yourself (I've certainly done that--I have a degree from a good college and I've worked very hard), but that doesn't guarantee that you're going to be paid what you're worth or that you'll even be allowed through the door.
Here's just one example: I have a friend who is a single, smart, extremely dedicated 8th grade teacher. She has a college degree and a master's degree. She's going to have to switch jobs, because her income is so low that if she were to retire at the appropriate age, she'd no longer be able to afford her modest house payments. Should all elementary and high school teachers, who are severely underpaid, switch jobs immediately and raise themselves to the next level? If they do, who's going to teach our children?
Meya wrote: You don't happen to be Republican or Conservative? Fine, but you can't discount every single thing a Republican politician tries to do. There is no way that any of them, Democrat or Republican alike is 100% right or wrong. Good ideas come from both sides. Admitting that shouldn't be so hard for reasonable people.
I'm not a Republican or a Conservative. I'm not a registered Democrat, either, but I've consistently voted for Democrats. I'll support an idea launched by a Republican if it has merit. I'll vote for a Republican if I find that he or she had integrity and a social conscience---in fact, while I don't agree with him on every issue, I do like John McCain, who appears to be honest and doesn't simply talk the party line.
One need only look at George W. Bush's record in Texas to know where his priorities lie. Just ask the residents of the Texas Colonias. I dislike him and distrust him not because he's a Republican, but because he's in the pocket of big business (he's got lots of company, but he's an even bigger offender) and while governor consistently pushed their agenda at the expense of the Texas working poor (most of them are working poor---welfare for a single mother of two in Texas is $202 a MONTH, and Bush fought raising it from $188 because he wanted to give a tax break to property owners instead) and the environment.
Jenny
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
posted on February 12, 2001 11:38:25 AM new
Shoshanah ~ I guess this means you're not going to retract/correct your inaccurate statement?
neelieohara ~ I hope you had a good weekend?
I do agree with some of your points. No one is ever paid what they're worth, just ask 'em.
But one can't just connect the dots to success anymore, and it's too simplistic to claim that every person who's struggling financially has only him or herself to blame.
Now, according to your example, how is it not their own fault they chose to go into education? Teachers are underpaid, they have been for decades. Perhaps your friend measured success, when she first got her degree, by who she was helping, rather than how much money she was making.. ?? (that's one answer ) . Your friend knew what her morgage would be, when she purchased the house ~ she knew how long it would take to pay off *what age she would be*, etc. These are all her own decisions. No one twisted her arm to buy a house that was beyond her means if she was to still be paying on it during retirement.
Should all elementary and high school teachers, who are severely underpaid, switch jobs immediately and raise themselves to the next level?
While I do agree they're underpaid, they have been for a VERY long time. They made their choices before they even got their degrees. They knew the pay scales when they decided to become educators. They've got a choice, they can quit and get a better job.. or they can teach children. It's just going to depend on how they measure success.
I do feel, that a lot of people do have themselves to blame, if they're struggling financially. It's their choice that they've decided to be a stay at home mom.. while hubby goes out and works full time. It's their choice to not graduate high school. It's their choice to not go onto college. It's their choice that their idea of a "full time job" is selling on ebay *as an example only, no one in particular*. It's their choice if they've over spent, over morgaged, over etc. If they're struggling, that's their problem. They could do more, but they've chosen not to, for whatever reason.
posted on February 12, 2001 12:21:43 PM newI do feel, that a lot of people do have themselves to blame, if they're struggling financially. It's their choice that they've decided to be a stay at home mom.. while hubby goes out and works full time. It's their choice to not graduate high school. It's their choice to not go onto college. It's their choice that their idea of a "full time job" is selling on ebay *as an example only, no one in particular*. It's their choice if they've over spent, over morgaged, over etc. If they're struggling, that's their problem. They could do more, but they've chosen not to, for whatever reason.
Rosiebud:
I think we've reached an impasse, here. I'll just have to respectfully disagree with you. I don't believe that anybody makes the choice to be poor. I find that line of thinking particularly offensive, because throughout history it's been a common trait of the rich and powerful to blame the poor for being poor while simultaneously making it more and more difficult for them to dig their way out of poverty. (I am, of course, not inferring that you are rich, powerful and without conscience.) This is not to say that every poor person or every person who struggles can deny responsibility for their own problems, but nor will I concede that every one of them made their own bed. One need only be willing to look outside one's own circumstances to understand how hard life might be for another person.
I simply don't know what to say. I am
speechless. Anything that I might say in
reply to your last post would result in
my dismissal from Auction Watch forever.
posted on February 12, 2001 12:51:16 PM new
neelieohara ~ I respect your opinions and I don't deny that life can be hard for people. I think, in order to understand your viewpoint.. perhaps you could give me an example of how someone's actions (or inactions ) is not the reason for their current financial circumstances. I am willing to accept pysically/mentally handicapped working in a sheltered workshop as one of the reasons....... but that is the only thing I can think of off the top of my head.
Helen, what did I say that was so objectionable to you? Think about what I asked Jenny in the paragraph above. I believe, since you feel so strongly, about what I said, you should have no problems in coming up with examples
[ edited by rosiebud on Feb 12, 2001 12:53 PM ]
posted on February 12, 2001 01:24:48 PM new
I agree with rosiebud that most people are where they are in life because of the decisions they made along the way. While you cannot predict with 100% certainty that you won't hit some bumps along the way, if you make it a point to avoid as many difficulties as you can and take advantage of programs and opportunities that exist, then success is all that much easier.
While I understand that many start at a disadvantage economically, if it was impossible to get ahead, then nobody would. However, since many people have been able to achieve success despite some overwhelming odds, then it's obvious it can be done.
That's not to say that those who truly need help should not expect it or get it. That's what our taxes should be put towards with an emphasis on education, training and living as independently as possible.
posted on February 12, 2001 02:26:16 PM new
Helen, once again, I have to go back to definitions:
Ignorant:
1.Lacking education or knowledge.
2.Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3.Unaware or uninformed.
You claim that my viewpoint is that of unaware, uninformed person. You can chastise me for my viewpoint, yet you're unwilling to take the time to educate me in how my viewpoing is ignorant. If you can not, or will not, get involved, then perhaps you shouldn't have bothered to chastise me in the first place.
