So you feel the government should make him support those in need at the threat of jailtime if he doesn't?

 

So, you think Shaq needs a tax break?

So, you think Shaq needs a tax break?

 

I think that the government should not take more from him because he has done well and been successful.

I think that the government should not take more from him because he has done well and been successful.

 

Do you agree to giving tax breaks to companies that have taken jobs to other countries?

 

I understand your argument but there will always be a two part to any tax format.

A. Percentage of income

B. Total paid.

Where Bill Gates secretary pays a higher % of her income to taxes than Bill does but Bill pays much much more overall.

 

Wealthy people have never been taxed into bankruptcy (that I know of anyway) but it hits poorer people very very hard.

I think that the government should not take more from him because he has done well and been successful.

 

You mean because he was born 7'2".

 

Or because Paris was born a Hilton.

Or because Brittany was born with a voice that sounds good.

 

 

Some people are wealthy because they earned it, I think Sam Walton would be an example there.

 

And others are wealthy because of very little of what they have done.

 

Shaq did nothing to be 7'2". Make him 5'8" tall and he probably does not have all of his wealth.

Make Paris' last name Smith and she is not on the news every night.

Give Brittany my voice and she is still trailer trash but actually living in a trailer.

Here's a scenario:

 

A young girl gets pregnant when she's 18. She's graduated high school, on the path to college, and WHAM! She has another life to care for. She has the baby, doesn't go to college, and tries to make ends meet taking whatever job she can. She's without help. Her family can't take care of the baby while she works. Day care costs upwards of $150/week. She makes $9.00 an hour. She has to pay her rent, utilities, baby needs, day care, car payment, insurance and health insurance on that $9.00/hr. She tries. She really tries. But the baby gets sick with a bronchial infection and she winds up missing a week of work. They are pretty good about it, but it's winter, and she keeps missing work because the baby has ear infections, and the occasional fever and the day care won't allow her to bring the baby. She loses her job.

 

Are these circumstances beyond her control? Should she and the baby just suffer because of a mistake made over a year ago? Is this just her tough luck because she was irresponsible one night? Is it just the tough luck of the baby because it's parent was irresponsible one night, that it winds up homeless and hungry?

 

Like it or not, in a civilized society, we take care of those who have less.

 

 

Good point with a very realistic scenario. I hope this person would be able to find a church or local organization to help her out in this situation. I know for a fact that my church would jump on an opportunity to help out this individual.

 

When life happens (like the scenario you portrayed above) we should look for support and help. I just feel that a church would do a much better job of supporting this individual. With many entitlement programs that the government runs, people in this girl's scenario feel like they are owed this support from the government. I think they might not feel the same way if they received support from a church or local organization.

 

I also don't think you will see nearly as many individuals abuse a system with actual people and churches involved than compared to a monthly check that someone is entitled to from the government. As I have said before, I am a huge supporter of welfare just not government welfare.

You mean because he was born 7'2".

 

Or because Paris was born a Hilton.

Or because Brittany was born with a voice that sounds good.

 

 

Some people are wealthy because they earned it, I think Sam Walton would be an example there.

 

And others are wealthy because of very little of what they have done.

 

Shaq did nothing to be 7'2". Make him 5'8" tall and he probably does not have all of his wealth.

Make Paris' last name Smith and she is not on the news every night.

Give Brittany my voice and she is still trailer trash but actually living in a trailer.

 

You have begun to draw lines again. I ask you again, where do you draw it at? If we start drawing lines now, it can quickly be a line where many people may view your's and my income as excessive and want to take money away from you at a higher rate. Then which side of the fence will you be on?

 

I just feel it is a slipperly slope that many of us don't think about the long term consequences of our actions now.

This comes back to expectations. While things are going well everyone is fine but lets use the beef scare & recalls this week. People want to know how did this happen? what changes will be made? If we didnt have this type of program we'd have no telling what in our food.

 

While many argue that businesses will do what's right, this beef company sure didn't! They abused, neglected and put possibly harmful food into the market for not just anyone. They sent it to schools. why? they would have lost a few bucks, if they hadn't used it.

 

I am unclear as to how you have tied this to wealth redistribution? Could you elaborate?

You have begun to draw lines again. I ask you again, where do you draw it at? If we start drawing lines now, it can quickly be a line where many people may view your's and my income as excessive and want to take money away from you at a higher rate. Then which side of the fence will you be on?

 

I just feel it is a slipperly slope that many of us don't think about the long term consequences of our actions now.

 

Funny you mention that. My parents railed against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. When I told them that our family of two public school teachers had my taxes cut almost in half, they shut up about the Bush tax cuts being for the wealthy. As I am far from wealthy.

 

As a nation, we should be able to make that determination. It should not be that hard of a decision.

 

Like they do for whether you get free/reduced lunch, take the poverty level and take 500% or some % of it. Below that minimal to no taxes. Above that then you are taxed.

Something shut me up?!?! NEVER!!!!!:lol:

 

Not sure I know what you mean by aggressively tax the rich.

 

And not sure that I said or agree that it is biblically rather was questioning and contributing to the debate. My view on this matter is in flux right now. And I know I don't presently have a concrete position.

 

So you're saying there's still a chance to bring you over to the dark side?:thumb:

 

I also don't think you will see nearly as many individuals abuse a system with actual people and churches involved than compared to a monthly check that someone is entitled to from the government. As I have said before, I am a huge supporter of welfare just not government welfare.

 

Disagree. Our church has been fleeced many, many times by people who wanted money. Since we are a church they assume no will not be an answer. Total strangers that are "driving by" and don't have money to get back home stop by fairly routinely.

Funny you mention that. My parents railed against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. When I told them that our family of two public school teachers had my taxes cut almost in half, they shut up about the Bush tax cuts being for the wealthy. As I am far from wealthy.

 

As a nation, we should be able to make that determination. It should not be that hard of a decision.

 

Like they do for whether you get free/reduced lunch, take the poverty level and take 500% or some % of it. Below that minimal to no taxes. Above that then you are taxed.

 

 

Are you really serious about this?

In reality, look at some of the posts in this thread. Not enough people give voluntarily or give enough for the churches or the non-governmental agencies to cover the needs of the many that are in dire straits.

 

There is the utopian ideal (everyone can get help without the government's help), and the reality (there isn't enough charitable resources available).

 

 

Maybe this is due to the fact that instead of our first 10% of income being donated it along with the next5-25% is taxed. I could be wrong though.

So you're saying there's still a chance to bring you over to the dark side?:thumb:

 

It means I am struggling with what Jesus' wants me to do and what my self wants me to do. And trying to figure out where Jesus would fall on this issue.

 

I agree that Jesus was not about the government doing His work.

But that was in a much smaller society.

 

Now the government can be an efficient organization. Post office is efficient. Military is efficient. So, properly ran, it can be an efficient system to take care of the needy.

 

And since the government is supposed to be a representative of those that it governs, if this country would adopt the mentality of Jesus to take care of those that do not have, than it should be a system to take care of those that do not have.

 

And contrary to other threads on here, I don't see Jesus as a Darwinist that would be for let the strong survive and the weak fall to their own demise and the rest of us just stand by and blindly let it happen.

No one is arguing that we should tax more b/c people waste money. This is an absurd argument since there is no way of knowing or making any rules regarding "wasting".

 

 

Then what is the argument for taking more money away from him?

Are you really serious about this?

 

Which part? And it is a quick idea thrown out there for discussion to your slippery slope point. I don't think it would be too hard to determine a level of where you are not just "doing" life but living a life of luxury.

 

I took students to NY once for a fashion design trip. We went to a couture shop that said they had numerous customers who everything they wear is courture. The underwear and socks are specifically designed for their fit. They take measurements of their feet and toes and then design socks to perfectly fit their feet.

 

I have no sympathy for people paying higher taxes when in turn they are having socks designed to specifically fit their feet without it being a medical condition or paying $2,400 a month for their pets.

 

Now, they want to take those funds and reinvest in their business, expand and offer more jobs, I can be for tax breaks for funds invested into the business for expansion. I am up with dat.