doclinkin wrote:daoneandonly wrote:Luke 12:48: For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.. Essentially words doc quoted
Cool. So even god is on the side of helping the poor not suffer. Neat when things line up that way.
The quote makes sense, regardless of what tradition it is pulled from. Religions the world over identify basic human ethics. The fact is you can get rich by being ambitious and self interested. Of course. And if you are gifted with opportunities and the luck to be born in a country with resources that can provide a better future for yourself and your family then great.
Opportunities are not evenly distributed. This is why your family chose to move here from a country where their struggle could not result in reward. And they raised you in a country with public education and a medical system that may have saved your life in a recent health scare if I recall correctly. And you have gotten a glimpse of how dangerous it might be not to have that safety net.
But poor people can’t pay for public education. Disproportionately their basic means suffer. If you could have a flat tax on surplus income after means are met. If rent and groceries etc were deductible and there was no sales tax but instead profit and wealth were taxed, well then yeah a flat tax might be ‘fair’.
But if you relied on the poor to pay for that education then we’d have pretty poor education. And in economically depressed areas of the country we do. Education suffers.
I’m glad you agree we should have a safety net. You suggest in a country where we have 3D printers etc there ought to be a better method of assessing if someone truly needs that safety net or not. But all the advances you cite were created with profit in mind. And significant money poured into R&D. So yes. We should be smarter and more efficient at delivering help to those with the greatest needs. What’s your proposal. An AI? A phone app? Better delivery of services to the needy with better trained staff and better resources would cost money. Where does that money come from? The poor? If they had it they wouldn’t need it. And would that money be more likely to reach them by spending those resources on advances in targeting them? What if you were more likely to reach them simply by having that money available for the services themselves?
Here’s a question. Which is worse: Theft or manslaughter by neglect? If a woman stole infant formula to feed her baby you might forgive her. Or buy it for her. If she left the baby to starve to death you’d think that was a horror.
Shouldn’t our country operate the same way? Yes there will be people who game the system. And work with incredible innovation to do the least work possible and live off of somebody else’s efforts. It’s shxtty. I hate that feeling. Getting beat. However. It will happen.
But which is worse: that sometimes people will get away with stealing. Or that sometimes babies will die. Old people will freeze to death. That people will be murdered by neglect. By lack of care. Which is the worse sin? Theft? Or manslaughter.
There are people who have all the ambition in the world who lack the skills. Talents to succeed. Should a severely autistic child just be turned out on the streets when he is 18 and let to starve to death sitting on a curb? He should just work harder?
If an elderly man becomes senile, should he just wander off into February and die of exposure? He should just work harder not to be old? That’s the America you want to live in? One that punishes people for having disadvantages?
America is better than that. The bargain is: you get to be rich. Maybe a percentage less rich than you might be. But some part of that wealth will be the quality of life of living in a country that will protect the least of us by leaning on the strength of the best of us.
You can search any religion you want but at some point that is basic morality. The strong protect the weak because they can. Therefore it is their duty. Feel free to participate in the process and argue about the best way it should be spent. With votes and laws. But I can’t see how people who reach the upper tax brackets have any way to complain that the world is unfair to them by asking for more of their help. You ask for help from those who can afford to give it.
I can appreciate how you approach this doc, no name calling or outlandish accusations, just thorough points as you see it, thank you.
Absolutely God is on the side of helping the poor, and all this falls into the realm of basic human decency and ethics. But one could easily make that same argument for the social issue I constantly harped on, wasn't trying to bring it up again and keep beating this horse, but why does separation of church state matter there, but not here? That's what I don't understand, seems rather convenient for the progressives, no?
Yeah unfortunately I did have a health scare, still have to deal with all the aftermath, it's changed my views on the healthcare system and how no man or woman should have to worry about paying for their healthcare needs. But that's a separate entity from taxes. I'd like to further understand your mention of paying for education, and the mention of poor people not being able to afford it? We all pay for it, do we not? Even those who don't have kids or those whose children go to private school. I don't think we need to get so convoluted to the point where those folks get a waiver, that makes it too complicated and really no added benefit for those efforts.
With respect to how you mention how you cant see ppl in those higher brackets not having reason to complain that they are treated unfairly, of course there are reasons. There's people who sacrificed time, energy, social life, etc to get to those brackets, despite what Zonk thinks, not every person who may have some wealth was gifted it by daddy like Donald Trump. People who work at jobs they dread going to, but still do because it takes care of their families, those folks have every right to complain that they're not seeing more of the income they should be earning because certain politicians, ones they didnt even vote for in many cases, can determine what's fair or not.
