Mermaid711 0 Report post Posted August 5, 2007 Okay, so the other day we got a letter in the mail. Both of my parents are teachers and as we all know a teachers salary bites al ready, but it said that there is going to be something like a 20% tax takin out of it, and not just for teachers, anybody who doesn't work year round. Well I think it is wrong that the IRS can steal from someone who is working their *bottom* off to get money. Sure socialism seems nice, when you have a huge paycheck, like government officials do, but when you live in middle class america it isn't fair that we have to pay for people who are too lazy to work. Sure if you are disabled and unable to work I can understand that because you can't get money, so i will gladly give a few dollars to help those who are less fortunate and cannot do the things i can. I will also be more than happy to give up some money so i have a "safety net" to fall back on in case i get laid off. But what maddens me is that it is okay for people to not get jobs and sit on their lazy asses all day, living off of MY salary and do nothing to try and get off government help. It makes me angry that people choose to abuse the things we work so hard for. I think that there should be a time limit on how long somebody can live in government housing (with the exceotion of the dissabled.) I think that we should take free lunches out of schools (well not completly because some kids are the children of the dissabled.) And hand everybody who can't prove they have a reason to be sapping MY money a job section out of the newspaper and tell them too go find a job and not everything in life going to come to you easily. The private sector will always do a better job than the government. Welfare is a hand up- not a generational lifestyle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FolkRockFan 0 Report post Posted August 6, 2007 I don't think that the government should have any type of welfare program for anybody who is capable of working. It's not Uncle Sam's job to make sure that everybody gets a monthly check just for sucking up air. Now we have FOURTH-GENERATION welfare dependents. That is not cool at all. Why didn't the first generation make sure that their children worked toward careers that would support them? Because it's a lot easier to drop a baby or two and collect a check every month for sitting in front of the TV all day.I'm tired of supporting people who don't want to work. It's not my job. It's not my responsibility to care for somebody I did not bring into this world. I resent having part of my paycheck hijacked for people who won't just get a job already.And it ticks me off that I have to take out student loans and work my way through college...whereas somebody who's messed up her life can waltz in and get free job training...and collect welfare checks while she goes to school. How is that fair? I'm working toward something - and racking up debt to do it - and keeping my life simple (no big bills and no children) while I'm doing that. But somebody who doesn't bother even trying to keep things together gets rewarded? She doesn't have to repay loans? She doesn't have to work through the trade school or whatever? And MY paycheck helps support this? Oh. And I pay Medicaid taxes. That SHOULD make me eligible for some sort of health care, but it doesn't. I have to be pregnant for that to happen. No. Really. That's what the Medicaid employees tell me every time I call or drop in to ask. Why should I go get knocked up with a kid I can't support just so I can get some dental work done? (We're not talking about cosmetic work, either - I need reconstructive-type work so that I can eat solid foods.)The system sucks. It rewards people for not even trying by robbing the people who ARE trying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elaks 0 Report post Posted August 6, 2007 I'm tired of supporting people who don't want to work. It's not my job. It's not my responsibility to care for somebody I did not bring into this world. I resent having part of my paycheck hijacked for people who won't just get a job already.In England, the only way for a white (Sorry, it's true; I government is over politically correct) working class person to get onto the council flat property ladder is to become pregnant (To make them a prioritory in the Government's eyes). Basically meaning; my parents not only pay the free accomidation they recieve- but also for their seven children who will not make any contribution to society and will most likely commit crime.I agree with you FolkRockFan- we have a whole generation who can just scrape by with the money they get from the government because it's more than they could get from doing a job (A job which requires no intelligence mind). Same goes for Polish people coming to Britain- they get more money from wellfare here, than a job for an average middle class person back home. If we don't stop the majority will be surviving on wellfare. I'm not against help though. If someone has any kind of mental illness, disabled or too elderly to work; I think the money should go to them, not however to illegal immigrants and the lower working class. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HoRuS 0 Report post Posted August 6, 2007 I don't think that the government should have any type of welfare program for anybody who is capable of working. It's not Uncle Sam's job to make sure that everybody gets a monthly check just for sucking up air.Well, any type is kinda rigorous.I have been on welfare for 2 years as well, but had to take care of my 2 yr old son, since his mom ran away.I didn't want him to become neglected in his early years, so I quit my job and took care of him for 2 years.But... I found me a girlfriend who is a great mom for him and as soon as she moved in, I went back to work.So not every type of welfare is bad, especially when it comes to children, and not everyone sits on their lazy b**s, but its a b**ch when peaple abuse such services.Now we have FOURTH-GENERATION welfare dependents. That is not cool at all. Why didn't the first generation make sure that their children worked toward careers that would support them? Because it's a lot easier to drop a baby or two and collect a check every month for sitting in front of the TV all day.Don't get me wrong, but I suppose yopur never had a kid yourself?To raise a child (properly) is a daytime job, sometimes even heavier then a 40hrs job.Sorry to say this, but these kinds of comment don't make sense if you haven't been there.The system sucks.On that I agree with you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dre 0 Report post Posted August 9, 2007 The system sucks.Not for the people who made it, as they can take whatever percentages they desire for "office management" and such. It's gonna take a brawl to bring this bad boy down, and they're not going down without a fight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sheepdog 10 Report post Posted August 18, 2007 OH, I agree! Completely!!!I get so annoyed when I go into grocery stores and see welfare rats buying cartloads of cakes, cookies, potato chips and convience foods. Easy pop in the mirco wave stuff. Pre cooked. The most expensive items in the store. Seems like if they aren't working they could at least fix their own meals instead of just popping something in the microwave so they can get quickly back to the Tv. And how they run to the doctor with every little complaint, snotty nose, or poison ivy. If I get poison ivy, I just go find the calamine lotion and am done with it. I've had bones broken and not gone to a doctor, simply because I don't have insurance or the money to pay the doctor. I think they should just abolish nearly all welfare. If you are too damn lazy to work, starve. Take some of the money they save, and put in the funds for school lunches. That way the kids can at least get something to eat, and maybe if they hang around school they might actually learn something usefull. Like how to hold down a job and not be a burden on society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FolkRockFan 0 Report post Posted August 18, 2007 No. I do not have children.But why should *I* be responsible for some other family's problems? I'm not the one who reproduced. I shouldn't have to be part of that infernal "village" (which is, in my estimation, a nice, sweet way of saying "communism"). And it's not like sitting at home is the ONLY option. Yes, it's BEST for children if they have a parent at home. But when an adult picks a lousy person with whom to reproduce, that adult must accept the consequences of said hasty decision. And because I didn't make that cruddy choice, I should not have to help clean up the mess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mermaid711 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2007 I just hate how it is okay for some bum to live off of MY FREAKING SALARY. Now, I am not but 13, but I do work, for my dad for some cash during the summer, and no, it is not in violation of child labor laws. He owns a legit bussiness and therfore must pay taxes. How ever, I got a rude awakening when i worked a large amount of hours and only got payed for a few of them. I was like "Dad, what the heck? I worked X ammount of hours and i only got payed for N ammount of hours. What the crap?" And he was like "Taxes honey." And I was thinking to myself, "GOSH DANGIT SCREW THE IRS!" Why should some fat *bottom* live off of my salary?Oh and one more thing- have you noticed how the democrats are starting to take controll over the government? And have you noticed they planned to REMOVE THE TAX CUTS?!?! And when you ask a democrat how to solve something have you noticed they always say, "start a program"? THAT IS YOUR TAX MONEY THET THEY ARE WASTING! I HATE how I have to work for $6.50 an hour, but little billy over there gets to sit on his fat *bottom* allday watching television. I hate, how I must deal with whiney customers all day, while little jamie gets to play on the internet all day. I hate how 8.25% of my paycheck is paying for little bobby's DSL, while when i move out, I will probably only be able to afford dial up, and that is if they still have it then.Oh Em Gee the Government is screwed up! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sheepdog 10 Report post Posted August 19, 2007 Wow! You are really, seriously just 13????Your pretty sharp for a 13 year old, way to go! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cangor 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2007 man I just don't like the idea of the government stealing in general. You shouldn't have to pay property tax, because it's your property. You shouldn't have to pay income tax, because it's your income. Now, I wouldn't be against a tax for using roads or something where we are utilizing a government service, but the government is taking what isn't theirs to take. And, you know, if you look at the budget for the federal government, basically 60% of it is spent on social services and 40% or something like that is spent on the war. I'm a little less angry paying state taxes where I actually see my money going towards something, but being forced to pay for a welfare program for which 95% of the families don't need it and a social security system that's falling apart and a war that I don't support is just ridiculous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
9block 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2007 Wow! You are really, seriously just 13????Your pretty sharp for a 13 year old, way to go! lol i was thinking the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FolkRockFan 0 Report post Posted August 20, 2007 Taxes are not inherently evil. The government does need funding for certain things. We all, for example, benefit from roads. Even people who don't directly use the roads benefit because our commercial goods (everything from stereo systems to CDs to food) travel by truck at some point or another. So, yes, let's pay taxes to help maintain roads.But I would love to see the IRS go bye-bye. Instead, what if we paid taxes when we SPENT money, instead of when we EARNED it? That way, the guy who earns cash under the table will still pay taxes. He has to spend money at some point. So he goes to buy a new shirt and pays a bit in taxes. The teenager who mows lawns for cash every summer will pay taxes when s/he buys a new CD at the record store. So forth and so on. It's not a perfect idea, sure, but it's better, IMO, than income taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mermaid711 0 Report post Posted August 20, 2007 But I would love to see the IRS go bye-bye. Instead, what if we paid taxes when we SPENT money, instead of when we EARNED it? That way, the guy who earns cash under the table will still pay taxes. He has to spend money at some point. So he goes to buy a new shirt and pays a bit in taxes. The teenager who mows lawns for cash every summer will pay taxes when s/he buys a new CD at the record store. So forth and so on. It's not a perfect idea, sure, but it's better, IMO, than income taxes.Here's the thing though. I agree with you completely. But we already do pay taxes when we spend... we just pay property taxes, income taxes, and Lord knows what else taxes... And Do we benifit from most of it? NO WE DO NOT! And it angers me.... The property taxes pay for school, which there are so many kids at our school who are just flat out wastes of space... and will be on welfare anyways... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites