|
Ugh well i half agree. They should give but not by law that's a little over the wall. They should be
generous though. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, and they DO! If we don't pay our taxes which mostly goes to poor people, we go to jail and
lose all our property! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with the other side in that the rich do pay taxes to support the poor. However, from what
the American politicians argue between each other, the less than rich support those less wealthy
than they are. The rich support themselves to become more rich and essentially maintain the
illusion that America is something other than completely broke. It's like a glass floor instead of
a glass ceiling. The rest of us are stuck in the basement beneath the stairs. A certain synergy is
just keeping us there while some of us break through and do in fact donate quite generously. But
still.... Huey long, a 1950s louisianian politician, had suggested a tax reform that said anyone
making over a million dollars owes that surplus to the government and that that money would be used
where necessary but distinctly not as political fodder.
Now a million might be a little... Strict i suppose with the multi-million/billionaire idea of the
new and copyrighted American Dream, but the idea of the rich paying back the legs they're standing
on seems to maintain a very simple logic to it. I wanna know where this 600/1200$ is coming from.
It makes me feel so dirty to get the money. Of all the years to get a bonus..... To spend on
stimulating my own economy when i need the money for more important things than trifles. Lol i got
my ipod and laptop im good. Credit card bill ::sigh:: Here we come. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The rich should at least help out them out.I mean it is not a crime to give a little bit. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
They are already compelled to help poor people by force of law through the system of taxation.
Governments use the sums levied in taxation to alleviate poverty in their own countries and in other
countries around the world. This is the way it should be.
In the Victorian era, before the age of big government had dawned, rich philanthropists would
occasionally leave large sums to help the poor. I don't think any reasonable person would want to
return to that era where people literally starved in the streets and dreamed of receiving some
charitable crumbs from the tables of the barons of industry.
If you're suggesting that new laws be enacted to compel private philanthropy in addition to the
existing government redistribution mechanisms, I really can't see how that would work in practice or
why there is any compelling need for it. If you want more redistribution to take place, it would be
simpler for the government just to raise the taxation level on the very rich and disburse the money
in its own way. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
My reasons have been said by others already. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wealth is gained by people that work hard and why should they made to give money to those who are
not helping themselves. Those who aren't doing anything to help themselves don't deserve hand outs
from people who have probably worked hard all their lives to get where they are today. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't believe the bible but a phrase in it seems appropriate here "give a man a fish and he will
eat for a day teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime." If the rich are forced to give to
the poor then the poor will not have to try to be better and the rich will quit trying because they
will not get to keep what they earn. At that point we will all be stupid and lazy. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
They do in way, When society holds the
poor against the rich by comparison,
they began to create hand out type of structures to remove the guilt off of the shoulders of the
rich. Example: Welfare. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think it's called socialism and communism (I am NOT comparing the two, well kinda) The idea being
that people pay very high taxes, and/or everyone earns the same. Socialism has been shown to work
(such as universal health care) but the idea that people are forced to help someone else is flawed |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If they worked for their money and they can do whatever they want. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forcing any group to help/donate to charities/ poor/homeless people but not forcing everyone is a
form of discrimination. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The United States of America consists of two people. Those who are driven to succeed and become
winners. These are the people like Bill Gates who worked hard and developed a highly successful
corporation, making billions of dollars. Then there are the people who hate Bill Gates. Those who
are living an average or below average lifestyle because they were not willing to work near as hard
as Bill Gates but want to blame everyone but themselves for their failures.
People who lose find ways to blame those who won. It's because of over charitable people that the
poor will never have any drive to pull themselves out of their poverty. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wealth is the reward for playing the game of "Capitalism" well. Karl Marx suggested this idea quite
some time ago and it just doesn't work out. By compelling someone to give away their money, people
suddenly have to incentive to generate wealth which leads to a stagnant economy. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Most do. Furthermore, the rich pay more taxes than the poor, because they hardly do. Sometimes, they
get no taxes at all. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forcing someone to provide help to people in need against their will is tantamount to extortion.
People give to charities voluntarily, either because they strongly believe in a given cause, or
because they want to be issued an official receipt, in order to deduct this amount from their taxes.
We live in a free market, capitalist society in which everyone has the right to spend their money in
any way they see fit, so long as they pay their taxes. People above a certain income already pay
much larger quantities in taxes and this money is often used to invest in key public services,
available to all.
Requiring wealthy people to give to the poor, however, makes little sense, as I am not sure how
government would determine who is wealthy and who is not. What would be the threshold? A family who
owns a house worth $650,000 in a major North American city and has $400,000 in savings may
technically be considered a millionaire. Yet in reality, they are probably simply middle-class and
not actually wealthy by any standard. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm against it cuz it encourages poor people to work hard and earn their keep...after all that's how
all rich people got rich...some rich people get it through inheritance but somewhere along the line
there would have been some hard work which was done..richer people should encourage poor people to
work hard not simply throw money at them thinking they have done a good deed... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
"It's their money. Let them spend it the way they want to."
Bill and Melinda Gates and all others have earned their money and they have the right to decide when
and how to spend or give their money for what they choose.
They pay taxes too; even though millions of us do not believe that the wealthy deserved the Batty
Bush Tax Cut.
Live and let live. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Taxes to keep our social services afloat should continue. However, it's an individual's own business
what he spends his money on, and shouldn't be up to the rest of us or the government. Giving must be
done freely, or it isn't giving, it's stealing from the rich. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
We already do with taxes. So because someone worked their butt off and went to college to get a good
job like a doctor, lawyer etc. They should be forced to give money to people who just didn't care to
try. If that were to happen, more people wouldn't care to get a decent job...they would just rely on
rich people. That's pretty lazy and selfish. It makes me mad to know i have to pay taxes, give my
hard earned money, to other people who are just to lazy to get a job, or can't keep their legs
closed and they can't take care of their 8 kids. It's not the kids I'm mad at, it's the parents, I
also don't mind paying taxes that go to making new roads, school, etc. You just have some lazy
careless people. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree that there is a general moral inclination amongst many, that poor people should be given
some sort of help, by those who are richer.
However, I also agree with pappabear, in that if people have acquired their wealthiness through hard
work, and it is their money, why should it be decided for them how their money is to be used?
Also, where would the rich/poor divide line be drawn? People sometimes look upon doctors, lawyers,
businessmen, etc. Sometimes with distaste, but it must also be remembered that these people have
worked hard for what they earn, and their lives aren't as easy as they may seem; furthermore, richer
people pay higher taxes - for example, 40% tax in the UK for those in the upper earning bracket.
This is going slightly off the topic, but I still think it is relevant. Overall, I believe those who
are wealthier have the right to choose how they spend their money, helping those who are in need if
they choose to do so. |
| |
 jsh4  24 Feb 2008 22:40
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Why should people that have worked hard to acquire there wealth be forced to help those that don’t
have. This country is built on the belief that one can create there own wealth through hard work and
to force others to support those that haven’t tried or have given up is observed and stupid. There
are many organizations that help the poor, yes there are many that are down and out due to
unforeseen things but to punish the wealthy for having a good streak is wrong. The poor need to
change there mind set and keep trying. You are and will stay what you believe you are. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
