we actually should make the working poor and middle class pay much more in income taxes. They use far more in government services (by sheer numbers) than the people who pay most of the taxes (the top 5%) and until we make this massive voting group pay more taxes, they will continue to vote for tax and spend dems. Their votes are bought by dem promises that the dems will give them more government goodies paid for by the "rich"
as long as that goes on, this group will keep voting for more goodies and more tax hikes on the group that cannot outvote them
Clearly, you didn't take the time to think this through. How can a poor man pay anymore than he currently possess? If he has given of his last available cent, what more can he give? Asking the so-called "working poor" to pay more in taxes - a segment of society that as you've clearly stated relies heavily on government assistance in order to survive - is in effect pushing them into object poverty! You may as well make them all homeless now then to them to contribute economically.
Now, it is true that the poor will typically vote for any candidate they believe is for "them" - those who are struggling who really want to move up that economic ladder but just can't -- the deck is stacked heavily against them - but there are ways to help move them forward economically and, if done correctly, can prove to make a poor person more economically viable. My suggestion:
Tie social service programs w/education and training that lead to job placement. We do this with college students already, i.e., student graduate employment placement and referrals. Why not extend this same outreach to our state's welfare systems? In my state, Alamaba for example, this is done by marginally. People who lose their jobs and subsequently apply for unemployment benefits, for example, in some cases are offered "skills re-training," but what's missing is a pairing of one's current skills with the training OR informing and/or assisting individuals in transitioning from one professional skill into another especially where there is clear evidence that a specific skill or trade is being phased out, i.e., computer repair technician, and is being replaced by another, i.e., network engineer. To illustrate what I mean, consider the following:
Computers aren't the big, complicated machines they use to be from 15-20 years ago. It use to be that in order to repair them you had to know alot about the different motherboards, IRQ settings/switches, the various types of hard-drives, and know how to read tons of code. But now, computers are smallers, easy to assemble and change out compoments, and the software can pretty much diagnos itself and make those difficult IRQ settings themselves. Furthermore, plug&play and USB technology has made home computing so much easier. My 9-yr old daughter even knows how to plug in a USB thumb drive or mouse (not to mention they make those things wireless now...how 'bout that!?!)
It's no wonder most people who find themselves unemployed have no problem with staying home and collecting a paycheck. If the job market is sketchy, they're not going to pound the pavement that hard. If they are getting up in age and believe their skills aren't going to be utilized anyway, can you blame them for not trying to hard to find work again? And if they don't see an area in the jobs sector where they honestly believe an employer can use their skills either because that sector is saturated or is on the verge of going the way of the dinosour and they can't afford to go back to school and be re-trained, really...what's the use?
The system has it wrong and every state to its own needs to really reconsider "work-fare" and not "welfare". Our nation will always have poor people. It's just the way it is. The goal should always be to empower people so that they have access to meaningful education and skills training so that they can find meaningful work and, thereby, pay their own way through society thereby leaving our nation in better hands to the next generation that comes after. I don't think we're doing a very good job of that right now. The system needs to be changed. And that leads me back to the issue of taxes...
I came across these article today and found them quite shocking!!
"
Senate Republicans unveil a plan to make Bush tax cuts permanent," By Lori Montgomery, Washington Post Staff Writer, dated Wednesday, September 15, 2010; 3:16 AM
Senate Republicans are rolling out a plan to permanently extend an array of expiring tax breaks that would deprive the Treasury of more than $4 trillion over the next decade, nearly doubling projected deficits over that period unless dramatic spending cuts are made.
Aides to McConnell said they have yet to receive a cost estimate for the measure. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently forecast that a similar, slightly more expensive package that includes a full repeal of the estate tax would force the nation to borrow an additional $3.9 trillion over the next decade and increase interest payments on the national debt by $950 billion. That's more than four times the projected deficit impact of President Obama's health-care overhaul and stimulus package combined.
And then there's the companion piece...
"
Putting the $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts in context," By Ezra Klein dated September 15, 2010; 9:26 AM ET
(Graph not included herein; see article for details)
There is no policy that President Obama has passed or proposed that added as much to the deficit as the Republican Party's $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, if you put aside Obama's plan to extend most, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts, there is no policy he has passed or proposed that would do half as much damage to the deficit. There is not even a policy that would do a quarter as much damage to the deficit.
The stimulus bill, at $787 billion, would do about a fifth as much damage. But that's actually misleading: The stimulus bill was a temporary expense (not to mention a response to an unexpected emergency). Once it's done, it's done. An indefinite extension of the Bush tax cuts is, well, indefinite. It will cost $3.9 trillion in the first 10 years. And then it will cost more than that in the second 10 years. Call that number Y. And then it will cost more than Y in the third 10 years. And so on and on into eternity. Comparatively, the stimulus bill is a tiny fraction of that. The bank bailouts, which were passed by George W. Bush and the Democrats in 2006, will end up costing the government only $66 billion. The health-care bill improves the deficit outlook.
Republicans and tea party candidates are both running campaigns based around concern for the deficit. But both, to my knowledge, support the single-largest increase in the deficit that anyone of either party has proposed in memory.
To get an even better understanding of Sen. Boehner's economic plan, read what the (
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) had to say about his tax and budget proposals.
The plan would require immediate cuts of $101 billion — or 21 percent[1] — in funding for discretionary programs other than those funded by the defense, homeland security, and military construction and veterans appropriations bills, as compared to their current (fiscal year 2010) funding levels adjusted for inflation (in other words, compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline).
This would represent the deepest cut in funding for these programs from one year to the next in recent U.S. history .[2] Coming amidst the deepest economic downturn since the Depression, it would remove substantial purchasing power from the U.S. economy and thereby cost hundreds of thousands of jobs while heightening the risk of a double-dip recession. Rep. Boehner’s contrary claim that these cuts will “promote job creation” reflects a serious misunderstanding of basic macroeconomics under current economic conditions.
I'll hold off commenting further until the CBO scores Sen. Boehner's proposal, but so far what he has proposed doesn't look very good. The interesting thing here is for all his (and some Republican's) talk of "limited government" (in spending, federal employees and authority), it's interesting to read that the only programs Boehner won't touch all happen to resolve around - the government (i.e., military, defense spending, VA, homeland security, etc.)