Advertisements
Ok, so on one of the other threads a few people posted some things that got me thinking - and now I have a new question!
A few posters said that they don't want a government with "socialist" policies - mainly referring to wealth distribution and tax policies. They believe what the earn is "theirs" and don't want anyone dictating where it should go.
A few other posters (mainly birth moms) spoke about how money (or lack of it) was a major factor in them deciding to place. I think we all agreed this should never be the prime motivator, and it was soemthing we need to remedy.
I was thinking about how people should support redistribution of wealth, but then I thought about if I was in the position where I had a fair bit of money - would I really want a big chunk of it going to the government (no matter who is in charge)? I consider myself a "socialist" to some degree, but the answer was still "no". I don't trust any of them to spend "my money" appropriately, nor do I trust it would go where I want it to go. Not to weapons manufacturing, but to the less wealthy. Not to big business, but to environmental preservation. Etc.
Ok, so - my question is - would you feel differently about wealth distribution and "socialist policies" if you had some degree of control over where your money went, and the government was made accountable to you to ensure that it happened. So if you could pick your "cause", or maybe even if the money went directly to agencies working in the area rather than the government. But the amount would still be dictated according to earnings...
Would that make a difference to you, or do you still believe that what you earn is "yours alone"?
Just curious...
Like
Share
Advertisements
My youngest makes a "cranky toddler" look like the Sugar Plum Fairy -- on that note, I oughta have at least enough money for a $150,000 wardrobe . . . think? My friend works 9 hours a day at a daycare center. She barely gets a lunch 1/2 hour and almost never just gets to sit by herself and eat it. Then goes home to 4 more children. Can I just tell you that not getting a moment to even eat a meal without interruption may be one of my biggest gripes about doing what we do, Aller. Anyway, my friend makes $7.25 an hour getting spit up and pooped on all day. Her boss (who is a man) thinks that's enough. I find that incredibly disgusting. The kids she cares for (and, trust me, my friend is the ULTIMATE CAREGIVER)? Their mothers leave many of them there for 11 hours a day and when they have a day off, they call it "mommy day" and go out by themselves and leave the kids in care. I find that incredibly appalling. Anyway . . . who cares, right?
Socialism will only grow the federal government beyond its already bloated size. A program for this and a program for that can only aggravate an already pathetic situation. The solution then becomes more taxes and regardless of what either candidate or party says, taxes will filter down and everyone will end up paying more in the long run. It will only get better when government gets smaller.
Eventually the government will take all of my earnings and give me back what they deem is fair for me to earn. Darn... That's a lot like communism.
joskids
My friend works 9 hours a day at a daycare center. She barely gets a lunch 1/2 hour and almost never just gets to sit by herself and eat it. Then goes home to 4 more children. Can I just tell you that not getting a moment to even eat a meal without interruption may be one of my biggest gripes about doing what we do, Aller. Anyway, my friend makes $7.25 an hour getting spit up and pooped on all day. Her boss (who is a man) thinks that's enough. I find that incredibly disgusting. The kids she cares for (and, trust me, my friend is the ULTIMATE CAREGIVER)? Their mothers leave many of them there for 11 hours a day and when they have a day off, they call it "mommy day" and go out by themselves and leave the kids in care. I find that incredibly appalling.
Anyway . . . who cares, right?
Advertisements
Tanman, I'm a bit surprised by your post. My friend doesn't harbor "resentment" against anybody and neither do I. I've been a working outside the home mommy myself and had to leave my children in daycare. I'm personally happy (and broke) right now to be home with my children and value the time I have with them. I just think that those that care for our children should make a higher salary and that mommies, when they have a "day off" should spend it with their children. BTW, most the the parents of the children my friend cares for in her daycare center are not wealthy. Some get daycare expenses paid for and still take much time to themselves and leave their children to be cared for by others. I find that very sad, personally.
Josie, didn't mean to sting you. It just seemed like you were resentful of women who may take a day for themselves too. I stay at home with TJ most days, but sometimes I do take him to daycare so that I can get my hair cut or maybe a massage. He's there today because they are having a pajama party and I thought he would enjoy it. I felt a little "put in my place" by your post. I know you didn't mean it personally and I shouldn't have taken it that way.
Two things. First, well my office is closed on Election day and my daughter's day care is open, and you know what? I'm having a "mommy day." Between my job and being a parent I work 14 hour days everyday. So yes, I'm going to use that day to get everything done I had no time to get done in the last 6 months (including get my fingerprints redone for adoption #2), and yes, I may even take a couple of hours there to sit and read a book, or even get myself a new pair of shoes which I literally haven't done in 2 years. BAD MOMMY. (Josie, not to say that your friend shouldn't be making more - she certainly should! - but why is it that whenever a mom decides to do ANYTHING or take ANY time for herself she gets criticized?) And second: Why does the economic debate in this country always seem to be about extremes, when it really seems like a shades-of-gray kind of issue? I agree with so much on this board that's been said on both sides. (I would say I've gotten more conservative in this area as I've gotten older.) But once you agree that the government has SOME role to play and that SOME taxes are necessary, aren't we all then just arguing about degree? Which I guess we are, but when we start using words like "socialism" which have no real place in the debate we stop talking about what really matters. I'm not being very clear, I know. But I feel like these arguments become kinda silly after a while.
Advertisements
I never assumed that a mommy shouldn't have ANY time to herself. I work two part time jobs and stay at home with the kids when I'm not at work. I've had mommy days also when my husband is home with the kids and I can actually fit in a dinner with a girlfriend. Everyone is entitled to a little time once in a while. It's just sad to me that many of these women work 10 and 11 hours a day and when they have a day off, they leave their child in daycare. That was the point I was getting at. I did not mean to offend anyone who takes some time to themselves. I must have come across way different than I meant for it to sound. I've raised 8 kids and, believe me, no one knows the value of a few hours to yourself to shop or get things done than I do. And I still think that our daycare providers should be making a lot more money. Amen.
I couldn't agree more with the day care workers making more money. There are two people in this world that I am sooooo nice too, TJ's teacher and his doctor. They take care of my child and I want them to love him and me:) But, in order for workers to be paid what they deserve, parents would have to pay $200-300 a week for child care and I just don't see that happening. More households would probably have a stay-at-home-parent and that wouldn't be too bad either.
Advertisements
I did not read all the comments on this forum because I would have been here a day and a half, but here are just a few of my thoughts on 'speading the wealth around:'
While most good people certainly want to help others in need, it should not be the job/responsibility of any government to take on that mantle. Abraham Lincoln said, "It is the job of government to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves." Notice he didn't say "will not do for themselves." We can help each other. We don't need the government to do it. Has any government in the history of man ever done anything where there was not extreme waste of resources? Why, when my brother needs $10 to survive, would I give the government $60 so he can see my brother gets the $10 he needs? Where'd the rest go? Socialism and commuinism never work because they negate basic, primal human nature - behaviors not found in any other species.
And this is why "trickle down" economics works. Wealthy people employ. Period. Wealthy companies employ. Period. Poor people and poor companies - not so much. By NOT taxing the profit margins out of successful people and companies, those savings eventually make their way down to others in the food chain. Now, if a company saves, let's say, $1 million in taxes each year, does that mean it will all go into the economic food chain? No. This is where basic, primal human behavior comes in. People want to keep what they have. However, any good - even mediocre - business person will tell you that it takes money to make money. So they take some of that $1 million and put it to work developing and creating new products, improving services and customer efficiencies in order to draw more customers to their business. In order to do these things, they have to hire more people. And maybe lower their prices a little more than their competition. Their tax savings is starting to trickle down into the economy and stimulate the underlying economic stratas. It's just like when it rains, the leaves of a tree get it first, but it eventually makes it's way down to the roots. If it's just a little rain, the roots may never get wet.
Now, let's look at the opposite side. Say these same people/businesses take on a new $1 million tax debt. That money has to come from somewhere and remember, people want to keep what they have - that's primal - so the business starts cutting expenses - which usually translates to reducing employee numbers. OR they increase the price of their goods. Instead of a new car costing $15,000, it now will cost you $25,000. And since the value of your car has increased, so will your insurance. And maintenance. Etc., etc. Trickle down is primal and applies to every situation. If the top echelon saves money, the lower echelon saves money. If the top loses money, the lower loses money.
Another issue with 'spreading the wealth around' is this - who makes the decision of how much they are going to spread and to whom? And once we have given the government our wealth, what will be the next thing they expect to take from us without opposition? To quote yet another old-timer, I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said: "Anyone who would give up his freedom for security, deserves neither." I believe that I AM the best person to make choices for my life. This is what America is about. We are the most successful, most generous nation on the planet, and yet we let others attempt to goad us into guilt saying we are all rich, greedy and don't do enough for the rest of the world. And were we not the most generous, those accusations - by people with their hand out - would not faze us.
Also, success is something one earns through dedication, hard work and continued effort. Taking money out of Warren Buffet's pocket and giving it to me, might make me temporarily more affluent, but it will not make me successful. It will eventually rob me of any shred of personal dignity and turn me into someone who thinks they are entitled to the rewards of others simply because they have more than I do. Are there not already enough people in this country who think they are entitled to reap the rewards of other people's success?
And lastly - while I have many other thoughts - I will end here: In order for life to sustain itself, there must be balance in all things. That is a fact of nature. And while life is constantly evolving and shifting, continued life depends on balance. Night and day, sad and happy, war and peace, rich and poor. You cannot have one without the other. And while some might argue that if everyone had the same wealth, that would be balanced, they would have a point. UNTIL you factor in basic, primal human nature. People have to strive to survive. If for every 2 steps you take forward, one is taken from you and given to someone who is standing motionless, life will stall. And when you stall, you fall. And if one is robbed of the ability and impetus to strive, that fall will be never ending.
Regardless of your ideologies, vote on Nov. 4. It is a right and reponsibility we should never surrender.
Bcelli
I did not read all the comments on this forum because I would have been here a day and a half, but here are just a few of my thoughts on 'speading the wealth around:'
While most good people certainly want to help others in need, it should not be the job/responsibility of any government to take on that mantle. Abraham Lincoln said, "It is the job of government to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves." Notice he didn't say "will not do for themselves." We can help each other. We don't need the government to do it. Has any government in the history of man ever done anything where there was not extreme waste of resources? Why, when my brother needs $10 to survive, would I give the government $60 so he can see my brother gets the $10 he needs? Where'd the rest go? Socialism and commuinism never work because they negate basic, primal human nature - behaviors not found in any other species.
And this is why "trickle down" economics works. Wealthy people employ. Period. Wealthy companies employ. Period. Poor people and poor companies - not so much. By NOT taxing the profit margins out of successful people and companies, those savings eventually make their way down to others in the food chain. Now, if a company saves, let's say, $1 million in taxes each year, does that mean it will all go into the economic food chain? No. This is where basic, primal human behavior comes in. People want to keep what they have. However, any good - even mediocre - business person will tell you that it takes money to make money. So they take some of that $1 million and put it to work developing and creating new products, improving services and customer efficiencies in order to draw more customers to their business. In order to do these things, they have to hire more people. And maybe lower their prices a little more than their competition. Their tax savings is starting to trickle down into the economy and stimulate the underlying economic stratas. It's just like when it rains, the leaves of a tree get it first, but it eventually makes it's way down to the roots. If it's just a little rain, the roots may never get wet.
Now, let's look at the opposite side. Say these same people/businesses take on a new $1 million tax debt. That money has to come from somewhere and remember, people want to keep what they have - that's primal - so the business starts cutting expenses - which usually translates to reducing employee numbers. OR they increase the price of their goods. Instead of a new car costing $15,000, it now will cost you $25,000. And since the value of your car has increased, so will your insurance. And maintenance. Etc., etc. Trickle down is primal and applies to every situation. If the top echelon saves money, the lower echelon saves money. If the top loses money, the lower loses money.
Another issue with 'spreading the wealth around' is this - who makes the decision of how much they are going to spread and to whom? And once we have given the government our wealth, what will be the next thing they expect to take from us without opposition? To quote yet another old-timer, I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said: "Anyone who would give up his freedom for security, deserves neither." I believe that I AM the best person to make choices for my life. This is what America is about. We are the most successful, most generous nation on the planet, and yet we let others attempt to goad us into guilt saying we are all rich, greedy and don't do enough for the rest of the world. And were we not the most generous, those accusations - by people with their hand out - would not faze us.
Also, success is something one earns through dedication, hard work and continued effort. Taking money out of Warren Buffet's pocket and giving it to me, might make me temporarily more affluent, but it will not make me successful. It will eventually rob me of any shred of personal dignity and turn me into someone who thinks they are entitled to the rewards of others simply because they have more than I do. Are there not already enough people in this country who think they are entitled to reap the rewards of other people's success?
And lastly - while I have many other thoughts - I will end here: In order for life to sustain itself, there must be balance in all things. That is a fact of nature. And while life is constantly evolving and shifting, continued life depends on balance. Night and day, sad and happy, war and peace, rich and poor. You cannot have one without the other. And while some might argue that if everyone had the same wealth, that would be balanced, they would have a point. UNTIL you factor in basic, primal human nature. People have to strive to survive. If for every 2 steps you take forward, one is taken from you and given to someone who is standing motionless, life will stall. And when you stall, you fall. And if one is robbed of the ability and impetus to strive, that fall will be never ending.
Regardless of your ideologies, vote on Nov. 4. It is a right and reponsibility we should never surrender.