[nuisance26]

~I'm very moderate in my political beliefs so that's probably why I'm confused about what I've been thinking about lately. Basically that the US is still a class system. Not a born & bred type anymore so much as a have & have-not, and college educated & labourers. And that it's the responsibility of the upper class to look out for the lower just as they did in the days of knights and serfs(the nice knights anyway! and the serfs worked hard!). I don't mean to bash those who went to college and works hard and make more than average(I planned that for myself actually!)but those payrates would simply not be available if other people didn't work for less. So what I'm wondering is, is it conservative to think this way because of the Republican model of electing a representative to look out for the groups interest or is it liberal because the Democrats want to take from the rich to feed the poor? I used to be a fair-across-the-board kind of gal but now I'm thinking that it isn't fair that my smart hubby builds machines worth $50,000 DAILY and yet makes much less than that in a year. I wouldn't want to make everyone's salaries equal because I'm against socialism so the alternative is to accept the class system and acknowledge the responsibility of those who have more. What do you think?~

 

[Marie78]

I have wondered about this myself. I am thankfully working in non-profit right now. I used to hate it when I worked for a bank or retail stores because I was getting paid peanuts to bring them in lots of money. I was barely scraping by and the people higher up were living very well!

I haven't thought of this class separation for a couple of years. Obviously there are many better off than I am, but I no longer feel "used" like I used to when I was paid poorly to make rich people even richer. It's a problem in our society, I don't think that we should all make the same amount of money, but I do think that we should all make enough to live on (food, clothing, shelter, heat, water, elect,) basically the basics that we should all have the rights to, especially if we are working.

What burns my butt currently is those that are getting gov't "help," especially those getting a lot of "help" to survive in the form of: food, shelter, heat, elec., health care, etc...in our area these people are living better than the people earning minimum wage or just above. This is a problem and I don't think it's fair at all. This problem only encourages more people to find issues in their own lives that will allow them to have some help from the gov't to survive and stay in that situation, because it's better than working a minimum wage job with no help to get by.

 

[jamie79]

I have to say honestly that in my opinion the ultra conservative right does not look out for the less fortunate in this country. Bushes handling of Katrina for example. They talk a good game but I dont see it happening. The Democrats are not much better on the front

 

[leezza]

Personally I have thought for years that this is why the Dems & Rep don't want to do anything about the border, it is like slave labor.

I don't agree with socialism and everyone makes the same no matter what they do because then no one wants to do anything and gives no incentive.

I also don't believe in take from the rich and give to the poor.

I think that religous and private groups do better helping the poor and needy than the government ever has.

I also like the idea of flat tax or the tax when you buy stuff.

I also have a problem with folks that pay no income tax throughout the year getting a return, when they don't pay anything in the first place.

Oh, yeesh I could go on and on.....this is a good subject.

JMHO,
leezza

 

[Guest]

I agree that people who are in the "haves" have a moral and ethical responsibility to the "have nots." I just don't think that it can be legislated or taken care of by the government - it has to fall on individuals to realize that if they have a surplus, that they should help the less fortunate. If we had more and more effective) religious and private sector non-profits, then we wouldn't need the government to step in (with welfare, food stamps, whathaveyou).

Also, FWIW - I am college educated and there are plenty of "labourers" that make a lot more than I do. I think it's easier to lot at others and determine who is a "have" and who is a "have not" - rather than look at yourselves and realize where you truly are. We can't afford a house around here, but we still are a lot better off than many people out there, and gave around 5% of our income to local charities last year. (On a related tangent - I also believe strongly in giving to LOCAL charities - that way I feel like I'm truly helping my neighbors)

 

[Peaches]

I don't agree with socialism and everyone makes the same no matter what they do because then no one wants to do anything and gives no incentive.

Well, I disagree. Norway has a system whereby people are paid very similar wages regardless of the job they do, and it has one of the lowest unemployment rates and highest standards of living in the industrialised world. It also has a very low infant mortality rate and a high average lifespan. When I visited there in 2004, I was impressed by how clean the country is and how all the Norwegians I met were so well-educated (even the people who worked on the supermarket checkout spoke superb English).

I think there's definitely a class system in the U.S. and it's based on money, which is good in a way, because you can move from one class to another. Here in the UK, the class system is based on birth, so you can have working class (blue collar) people who are millionaires, but still considered blue-collar, and an aristocracy who are flat broke, but are still aristocracy. I always referred to myself as "middle class", but when I married my husband, he informed me that I'm "working class", because I married someone in the working class. Whatever!

I do think that we have a responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

 

[Jo]

What burns my butt currently is those that are getting gov't "help," especially those getting a lot of "help" to survive in the form of: food, shelter, heat, elec., health care, etc...in our area these people are living better than the people earning minimum wage or just above. This is a problem and I don't think it's fair at all. This problem only encourages more people to find issues in their own lives that will allow them to have some help from the gov't to survive and stay in that situation, because it's better than working a minimum wage job with no help to get by.

Amen, Marie! While I don't know what the solution is...I see that as a BIG problem in this country, and one of the main reasons that are politicians who are leading us towards socialism are doing so well right now. The rich get the tax breaks and places to put $$ where it's safe from tax, the poor get the aid programs, and the middle classes pay for it all, but then can't make ends meet(but make "too much" to get a little help when they need it). I have a dear friend whose son needs a feeding tube and $$ formula, and her hubby has turned down promotions and raises so that the boy can qualify for Medicaid help. The child's medical supplies cost more than her hubby makes in a month without help(and that's what these programs are MADE for!!..helping a handicapped child get the care he needs). Food, gas, taxes, living expenses still go up, but his salary does not. The American public is all but DEMANDING socialism, just as a knee jerk reaction to footing the bill for deadbeats(not that ALL people on assistance are deadbeats, but they're sick of seeing the blatant, in-your-face fraud that we all see). They've seen people using food stamps to buy better food than they are feeding their own families(even better, using the FS to buy things that qualify, then pulling out CASH to buy the junk food!!), talking on a fancy cell phone(not a basic model which we all need for emergencies), wearing $$ sneakers, sipping a Starbucks, and worst of all...the people who brag about how stupid we are for working. Average Joe Citizen dreads going to the dentist or doctor because it will mean a copay and a $$ prescription or some tests...while working so others can get care for free. The mindset is "Where's MINE?".Maybe that's the answer...spend some tax $$ to do a major housecleaning of the welfare rolls.
I'm a staunch conservative when it comes to government, but VERY socially responsible thru my church, where I feel it belongs. I don't mean to sound like I'm saying 'Let them eat ketchup', I'm saying it's not the government's responsibility to care for the poor. Sadly, the churches aren't doing their job....and on the other hand, people don't WANT to take from churches if it means they will be given literature or "the spiel". So...big Nanny Government comes in and screws it all up.
I do like the idea of a "fair tax", but I still see that same problem creeping up....the "entitlement" people will be exempt from the tax yet give no thought to being frugal or making smart purchases. They'll STILL be buying designer shoes and Starbucks, because there are no consequences.
It's a mess....sigh.

 

[lgw]

One of the most insidious and pervasive problems in this country is corporate welfare. If the government wasn't giving billions (yes, billions) to American businesses in the form of tax credits, subsidies and outright cash, the overall burden of taxes on you and me would drop dramatically. Some say we could eliminate the federal personal income tax if we would eliminate corporate welfare.

I completely support the free market; I believe those who are smarter/more entrepreneurial should be paid a wage reflective of their success. But I also believe the same should be true for American businesses, and right now, it's the business with the most lawyers and lobbyists who wins.

 

[annymoll]

Well, I disagree. Norway has a system whereby people are paid very similar wages regardless of the job they do, and it has one of the lowest unemployment rates and highest standards of living in the industrialised world. It also has a very low infant mortality rate and a high average lifespan. When I visited there in 2004, I was impressed by how clean the country is and how all the Norwegians I met were so well-educated (even the people who worked on the supermarket checkout spoke superb English

A doctor is paid the same as a street cleaner?May be admirable to some, that all the hard work, the effort, the cost, the education, rewards one in this manner? I think it stinks.I prefer to choose those I want to assist financially, not have it decided for me.

 

[AmyBoz]

Here's my take:

Yes, it is the moral and ethical thing to do to help out your neighbor. So, as a good person, you can do things like volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate your used clothes to charity, give a little money every now and then to a charity that you feel is worthy.

However, I do not believe that it is the job of the wealthy to take care of the poor. If you are born into wealth, then that may be one thing, but if you are wealthy because you worked hard, went to school, got an education, and now are enjoying the rewards of your success, then I say good for you, and be a good person, but you aren't responsible for others who haven't gone your route.

Also, (and I realize that this may be unpopular, but I'm feeling punchy today), I don't believe in the word can't. I "can't" work because of this or that. You know what? Life is full of choices. There is always something that everyone can do. I hear "I am on disability because I can't stand for too long," or "I can't handle being outside of my house," or "I can't focus on one thing for too long." Well, I'm sorry for your troubles, but there are things you can do. Even in this terrible economy, there are answering phone jobs, work from home stuffing envelope jobs, etc. There is always some way that you can pull yourself up by the bootstraps and take care of yourself. And I'm not some middle-class, eyes shut to the real world type of person. Believe me...my town has the highest of the highs and the lowest of the lows, and still, there are opportunities for people who really are willing to take their own lives into their own hands and do for themselves.

You have to be responsible for making the best of the situation you are given. Again, I say, life is full of choices. Just because one person chose to do everything they could and another didn't does not make the former responsible for the latter.

 

[FreesiaE]

No way. As stated earlier very few people are born into "nobility" type situations as feudal times. Those lords and ladies made their money off of the serfs working for them in terms of land and property taxation and it was basically impossible to rise above their status. We live in a democratic free society so everyone has the option to rise above their social and economic status, we are no longer locked in by our parent or parents parents lineage. Why should those who made it be forced to give? They pay taxes like everyone else, and those taxes contribute to those less fortunate. Anything else is above and beyond. They also pump money into the economy by making purchases like we all do . If we make people above a certain income give basically alms to the poor, what incentive would they have to work hard and increase their salary? I'd just work PT or something an ice cream store and not be going back to school or had gone to college; why not, someone else will spend all of that time, money, and effort and all I have to do is hang out.

 

[Holly]

JMHO
There is nothing Free about America.
We are taxed and taxed and taxed to death.

 

[nuisance26]

~I loved reading all the responses but my question was nessessarily about the very rich vs. those in poverty nor was it about not pulling yourself up to another class. Maybe I wasn't too clear. If EVERYONE grabbed opportunities and went up the ladder there'd be no one left at the bottom. Who would work at the factories or serve in restaurants? Are we suggesting that those jobs will only be filled by people who are too dumb to know better? I guess I was referring to those in my situation, which is low income to very low middle income, people who work hard and are not living in poverty. We have *just* enough for our needs. Of course I believe it's the moral duty of those who have to help those in poverty. I guess the question is more like; Do you think the workers of the low-income class should receive breaks and perks from the government that are not available to those who have more AND is it a Liberal or Conservative viewpoint?~

 

[Darlene]

Here's my take:

Yes, it is the moral and ethical thing to do to help out your neighbor. So, as a good person, you can do things like volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate your used clothes to charity, give a little money every now and then to a charity that you feel is worthy.

However, I do not believe that it is the job of the wealthy to take care of the poor. If you are born into wealth, then that may be one thing, but if you are wealthy because you worked hard, went to school, got an education, and now are enjoying the rewards of your success, then I say good for you, and be a good person, but you aren't responsible for others who haven't gone your route.

Also, (and I realize that this may be unpopular, but I'm feeling punchy today), I don't believe in the word can't. I "can't" work because of this or that. You know what? Life is full of choices. There is always something that everyone can do. I hear "I am on disability because I can't stand for too long," or "I can't handle being outside of my house," or "I can't focus on one thing for too long." Well, I'm sorry for your troubles, but there are things you can do. Even in this terrible economy, there are answering phone jobs, work from home stuffing envelope jobs, etc. There is always some way that you can pull yourself up by the bootstraps and take care of yourself. And I'm not some middle-class, eyes shut to the real world type of person. Believe me...my town has the highest of the highs and the lowest of the lows, and still, there are opportunities for people who really are willing to take their own lives into their own hands and do for themselves.

You have to be responsible for making the best of the situation you are given. Again, I say, life is full of choices. Just because one person chose to do everything they could and another didn't does not make the former responsible for the latter.

I like it when you get punchy like that, my thoughts exactly. :tay: :bow:

 

[Persimmon Lace]

Those who are lower income do receive perks in some ways as far as the EIC and other tax breaks. I believe that if you are in the 20,000 or less bracket then just don't pay taxes, but don't receive monies that you haven't paid in either. The EIC is huge income redistribution.

Those in the Democratic party take advantage of the tax breaks just as those in the Republican party. It just stands to reason that those who make more, pay more taxes based on the percentages.

Secondly, I am not against corporations and business receiving tax breaks. They put out the money and take the risks, they employ people and make it possible for their employees to get lower cost insurance. They should receive breaks for any type of benefits they give out. I'm not happy about the amount that Exxon is reporting for earnings but they didn't force us to buy gasoline and they employ thousands of people everywhere.

Poor people do not create jobs, unless you consider the vast bureaucracy that run all the entitlement programs. Every time a new "program" is developed that involves giving something to someone, their are tons of new layers added on to an already bloated government.

Bill Gates donates millions as do many other wealthy people, but that's their choice. However, I've noticed that those like Gates and Ted Turner are now exerting pressure on the government to change somethings. I certainly don't believe that their vote or voice should be any bigger than mine or yours. And BOTH parties are just as equal in the big voices they are listening too and it isn't right on either side. But if I had to choose between a corporation that created jobs and created wealth or someone like Barbara Striesand or some other actor, I'm afraid I would go with corporation.

 

[Marie78]

~I loved reading all the responses but my question was nessessarily about the very rich vs. those in poverty nor was it about not pulling yourself up to another class. Maybe I wasn't too clear. If EVERYONE grabbed opportunities and went up the ladder there'd be no one left at the bottom. Who would work at the factories or serve in restaurants? Are we suggesting that those jobs will only be filled by people who are too dumb to know better? I guess I was referring to those in my situation, which is low income to very low middle income, people who work hard and are not living in poverty. We have *just* enough for our needs. Of course I believe it's the moral duty of those who have to help those in poverty. I guess the question is more like; Do you think the workers of the low-income class should receive breaks and perks from the government that are not available to those who have more AND is it a Liberal or Conservative viewpoint?~

I'm lower middle class right now, thanks to a small pay increase (hard to tell because of taxes) and it would be great to have a tax break or get more of the money back that I paid into taxes at the end of the year. I agree with whoever said the middle class is taxed to death! Most people where I live are even making less than I do, but fortunately they qualify for gov't help (which sometimes allows them to live better off than I do). Like you I make too much to qualify for any kind of help or assistance and I am able to get by thanks to my frugal habits.

Even though I owe some modest CC debt and I'm trying to build an EF I donate $ every Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, and once in the summer to the local Food Bank and The Rescue Mission. I also give each time there is a postal carrier can food drive and I donate clothing and household items in good condition to local charities. I read somewhere once that it's people on the low to middle income side who give generously, at least what they can, because they have been or are more aware of how it would feel to be in need.

Since working in non-profit and seeing a lot of gov't money wasted on people who feel they deserve free money without working it sickens me and I sometimes feel that I shouldn't give what I can...because so many people receiving gov't help are getting more than enough to survive and then some. I guess I would be more willing to give of myself if I was getting a little help too, even if that meant less of my own hard earned money taken from my paycheck!

 

[sweetlittle]

I simply feel that we all need to give more to oneanother in many, many forms....such as monatary, time, knowledge, consideration or kindness.

 

[lgw]

If EVERYONE grabbed opportunities and went up the ladder there'd be no one left at the bottom. Who would work at the factories or serve in restaurants? Are we suggesting that those jobs will only be filled by people who are too dumb to know better? I guess I was referring to those in my situation, which is low income to very low middle income, people who work hard and are not living in poverty. We have *just* enough for our needs. Do you think the workers of the low-income class should receive breaks and perks from the government that are not available to those who have more AND is it a Liberal or Conservative viewpoint?

Americans are a very diverse group with different capacities. Just because someone works in a factory or in a restaurant does not make them dumb. It may be that for them, this is the top of their employment capacity, which can result from their knowledge, interest in a particular career, family obligations, etc. Others have different capacities that support careers as lawyers, doctors, and CEOs. As a result, we will always have people working in all of the diverse employment opportunities in this country.

In addition, I don't agree with equating salary to intelligence. What you make does not reflect how smart you are. It reflects the supply and demand in the marketplace. For example, university professors spend years obtaining Ph.D.s. Most people would consider a professor with a Ph.D. a very intelligent person. However, the supply of professors is dramatically greater than the demand for them. As a result, there are professors who cannot find jobs at universities, and those that do often earn well below what a tradesperson, such as an electrician or plumber, make.

Finally, I oppose government breaks and perks for any select group of people, whether it's welfare for the poor or tax breaks for the rich. If we had a truly transparent government that treated everyone equally, and which dramatically reduced spending so that you and I could keep more money in our pockets, wages would rise, new employment opportunities would be created and we would all be better off simply by virtue of having more money. This is a Libertarian stance. The liberals and conservatives try to claim it as theirs, but history tells a different story.

 

[PAVallygrl]

The Rich will Always look out for....THE RICH! They take care of their own. (Remember that)

On the other hand I don't believe in people getting things "handed" to them while they refuse to get up off their asses and go out and get a job.

But I also don't agree that it is OK for someone to make $10 or $12 an hour slaving away every day and some hot shot snot CEO can make 400 Times that amount for lollying around on a Golf Course all day. Sorry.

 

[sixfreds]

Here is my take.
My husband works hard for the money he makes. he works long hours. He started low and has worked his way up.

Why is it our responsibility to take care of others?
Why should we be punished because we have money? Why shoudl be be forced to pay for other people?

That being said I do lots of volunteer work and help others as much as I can BUT that is a choice I don't think people should be made to take care of the poor.

Eileen