 |
| Leading The Charge For Fairness |
I am continuing this for a while. I need to have time to give thoughtful response to Marks comment and would love to have others input.
I heard someone say yesterday that the rich should pay a 75% tax rate. OK I am asking Twitter folks, for what good purpose.#IfImRichWhatShouldIPayFor4U
I'll update this post as I get answers off of Twitter and include who gave their answers..
After a couple of hours, a couple of tweets, and a few direct messages I have no responses. So here are a couple of hints. (then I will push this post to Twitter).
Should I pay for your college education? You know - forgive your student loan.
Should I pay for your medicine deductible? Even those whose is only $1.00?
Should I pay for your food? Even if you have money to pay for cable and sports events?
Does this get you going? If I'm Rich what should you tax me for, in being fair?
Gotta go do some errands now: Still trying to get a handle on what all I should pay for.
Mark left a comment. I invite your opinion. I appreciate his courteous approach. Would you like to respond to my question for him?
I do not believe we are speaking of 75%. It is more of a question of where our tax dollars are going; the "rich" paying slightly more. I feel that taxes should be used to help those in need.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel that the rich are actually paying for medicine deductibles. It takes it a little too far to itemize exactly what wealthy peoples' tax dollars are going towards, as opposed to everyone else’s. If people need medicine what should we do? Not give it to them because they can't pay?
I have a good job, good education, and good health coverage. Why should my children be able to be able to see a doctor when sick, and have proper medicine but other children suffer because their parents have no health coverage? Many of these people are the working poor, not unemployed.
As for food stamps, in NJ where I live, food stamps are not meant to feed a family unless one can eat on $4 or $5 per day.
I do not even attend professional sporting events, if that is what you are referring to. It costs a fortune to go to games today. I doubt someone on food stamps is going to Yankee games. The cable analogy is another issue. I suppose we can inspect each person's home to see what they can live without before providing government assistance. But the assumptions you are making have me believe that the people receiving help somehow want to be in the situations they are in. In a way it is "let's knock them down and kick them before we throw them some food." We can take away basic pleasures, such as tv. But will that really help the situation? I believe that lowering someone's self-esteem and sense of self-worth is not the way to help the country. Yes, I believe that asking "the rich" to pay a few percentage points more in taxes than the rest of the population in order to help people is ok. I am sorry if my point of view offends you.
Thanks for your courteous response Mark. You've touched on a few points. I want to think through some of your points. I'll be back at you. Thanks Larry
ReplyDeleteMark, may I ask, do you think we are heading in the right direction?
ReplyDeleteMy first response to Marks Comment. If someone on welfare has a prescription need they can qualify for a welfare program that requires them pay a $1.00 co-pay. However, they learn that if they tell the druggist they don't have it he must pay it for them. Interestingly, the Government contract with the druggist allows him 54 cents profit on certain prescriptions. So we the 53% that pay taxes, pay for their prescription, except for $1.00 which is paid for by the druggist who does it and loses 46 cents. To all of you, is this the way it should be?
ReplyDelete