At the risk of being ridiculed....

[robine]

Here is an email I received..

I find the words and sentiments thought provoking..

I know how some here only read emails that support their views and that is fine.. if that is the case, refrain from reading this one..
It has to do with the fallacies of redistributing wealth


save us all the time if all you plan on doing is denounce "viral" emails ( or at least those that do not espouse your views)

Remain Casual and "open minded"..... it really does not matter to me, but spare me the rhetoric and mock outrage.



for those who can handle the truth I offer up these wonderful words...perhaps these sentences are some of the most valid ever written :







You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.









hope at least some here are not too casual about handing out OPM

[LBWP]

Amen.

L (46)
K&E=7.4

[intheknow]

Well, that just shot a hole right through liberalism and socialism.

[BC-Maura]

I agree with all of those sentences. Who wouldn't?

Yes, when we live in a society, we pay into it. It is cheaper to buy in bulk. Instead of hiring my own private police officer to protect me and my family, I pay taxes so that there is a police force. Instead of hiring my own firefighter, I pay taxes so that there is a fire department. Instead of hiring private educational instructors for my children, I pay taxes so that my children can go to public school. I could go on and on.

How much do we each need to pay in? That's where all of the problems start.

As a practical matter, there are some members of society who cannot pay in: children, people with certain disabilities, people who are sick with certain illnesses.

There are some members whose earning capacity is much lower than others.

It is undeniable that some will receive without working from others who work. See above.

There is no perfect system for determining what is "fair" for each member to pay. So we do the best we can ... and we fight about it all the time.

+++++++++++++++
Maura

[Maddy00]

Originally Posted by BC-Maura

How much do we each need to pay in? That's where all of the problems start.

As a practical matter, there are some members of society who cannot pay in: children, people with certain disabilities, people who are sick with certain illnesses.

There are some members whose earning capacity is much lower than others.

It is undeniable that some will receive without working from others who work. See above.

There is no perfect system for determining what is "fair" for each member to pay. So we do the best we can ... and we fight about it all the time.

+++++++++++++++
Maura

Oh yes there is! Unless the whole theory of our existence on this earth has changed, it's a matter of science that there are haves and have nots, there are those who earn and receive more, and those who don't. Since the dawn of time, there has been two ends to the spectrum. You can't have a society of "haves" only! It's common sense!

We as a society take care those who CAN'T, and that's how it should be. However, many believe we should also take care of those who DON'T, and that I believe is crux of the problem.

You don't need to be deciding what's "fair." It's none of your (or my) business. No one can legislate that! Until liberals wake up and realize that this agenda will only lead to the downfall of our country (just like it has multiple times in the world's history), we're on a fast downhill ride here and it's not going to end well.

Personal responsibility. Period. THAT is the "perfect system" and there's no way around it.

[BC-GoMom]

Maddy- I agree it is the "don'ts" that are multipling faster than the "haves". When it stops paying to be a "don't" then they will quickly change their attitudes.

[LandJ]

Originally Posted by BC-Maura

There is no perfect system for determining what is "fair" for each member to pay. So we do the best we can ... and we fight about it all the time.
+++++++++++++++
Maura

True there is no "perfect" system. But having all pay an equal percentage of their income makes a heck of a lot more sense than the "have" paying 48% of their income and the "have nots" pay 6%.

The Bible states that we should ALL tithe 10% of our income. That's it...a flat 10%. Not those who are rich should tithe more and those who are poor should keep most of what they have for themselves and give him what's leftover. All are equal. Of course, He also says a heck of a lot about the attitude of giving as well.

[BC-Maura]

Originally Posted by Maddy00

You don't need to be deciding what's "fair." It's none of your (or my) business. No one can legislate that! Until liberals wake up and realize that this agenda will only lead to the downfall of our country (just like it has multiple times in the world's history), we're on a fast downhill ride here and it's not going to end well.

Personal responsibility. Period. THAT is the "perfect system" and there's no way around it.

How do you translate your "system" of "personal responsibility" into dollars? How do you get the money from the "Haves" to the "Can'ts" (and by the way, I do agree that the "Haves" should not be supporting the "Don'ts")?

Do you not think that taxes are a necessary evil? If you think we need to pay some kind of tax, then don't we need to legislate those taxes?

And if you don't think we need to have a tax system, then again, how do you envision the transfer of money to the legitimate "have nots"? And for that matter, how do you decide who is a "can't" and who is a "don't"? Are there standards and criteria you use to measure?

++++++++++++++++++++++
Maura

[BC-Maura]

Originally Posted by Maddy00

We as a society take care those who CAN'T, and that's how it should be.

I forgot to highlight this sentence of yours.

In your view, how should society take care of those who can't? No laws regulating this, I take it. Then how?

+++++++++++++++++
Maura