Is it hypocritical to advocate the elimination of a benefit...

Is it hypocritical to advocate the elimination of a benefit and yet take advantage of said benefit?

Example #1: Child tax credits. Is it hypocritical to advocate the elimination child tax credits on principle yet claim child deductions on your tax return?

Example #2: Mortgage deduction. Is it hypocritical to advocate the elimination the mortgage deduction on principle yet claim the mortgage deduction on your tax return?

Example #3: Social Security. Is it hypocritical to advocate the elimination Social Security on principle yet take the money when you reach retirement age?

All of these are "if you qualify", of course.

I don't think it's hypocritical at all. In fact, not taking something... as long as it's legal... that you can is outright dumb. I do not agree with the idea of child tax credits/deductions, but when my kids were young enough I sure as hell took them. No guilt whatsoever on my part.

And, yes, if they had eliminated said credit half way through, I would have been fine with it. Sure, I would have missed the money, but I was never one to finance my kids based on tax implications. We would have gotten by just fine.

I feel the same way about the mortgage deduction. I'm less critical of Social Security, and do not advocate for its elimination, though some reform would be nice (another topic for another thread).

Absolutely not hypocritical. Especially on social security where you were forced to spend your whole life paying into.

When you see how much American money Obama is giving to newly arrived, job stealing foreigners, much of which becomes lifetime support for their huge families as well as sending enormous amounts of American money to America hating foreign countries, there is nothing hypocritical about getting every dime back from the government that you can get. Obama treats America as if it is his own private slush fund. If you can qualify for it, take it. Otherwise, Obama is going to spend it on something detrimental to you and your beliefs.

radcen said:

Is it hypocritical to advocate the elimination of a benefit and yet take advantage of said benefit?

Example #1: Child tax credits. Is it hypocritical to advocate the elimination child tax credits on principle yet claim child deductions on your tax return?

Example #2: Mortgage deduction. Is it hypocritical to advocate the elimination the mortgage deduction on principle yet claim the mortgage deduction on your tax return?

Example #3: Social Security. Is it hypocritical to advocate the elimination Social Security on principle yet take the money when you reach retirement age?

All of these are "if you qualify", of course.

I don't think it's hypocritical at all. In fact, not taking something... as long as it's legal... that you can is outright dumb. I do not agree with the idea of child tax credits/deductions, but when my kids were young enough I sure as hell took them. No guilt whatsoever on my part.

And, yes, if they had eliminated said credit half way through, I would have been fine with it. Sure, I would have missed the money, but I was never one to finance my kids based on tax implications. We would have gotten by just fine.

I feel the same way about the mortgage deduction. I'm less critical of Social Security, and do not advocate for its elimination, though some reform would be nice (another topic for another thread).

Click to expand...

I don't think employer based (and by virtue thereof employer controlled) healthcare is a good idea. However, some form of healthcare is better than no healthcare. I prefer seeing individual and family hospital/doctor group all inclusive flat rate memberships with national affiliations with out of town hospitals to cover away from home treatment and annual rebates around Christmas time offers for meeting voluntary healthy lifestyle benchmarks. In the meantime, go to the doctor on an employer based/controlled health insurance policy while advocating for something I think is much better.

Depends largely in the context, but in general, yes. It suggests you want other people to act on your beliefs when you have no serious conviction in them yourself.

A person who opposes a policy in anyway that matters would nearly always prefer to work at a handicap than rely on something they hate.

If you don't oppose something enough to undermine it in anyway you can (except murder and terrorism and other violent crimes), then you don't oppose it at all.

What difference...does it make?

Unless its Social Security or Medicare, yes, its very hypocritical. I can't tell you how many hardcore conservatives I have known that had their kids on SCHIP or were on Disability.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I can't tell you how many hardcore conservatives I have known that had their kids on SCHIP or were on Disability.

Click to expand...

A number which is dwarfed by the millions of radical liberal extremists calling for cuts to our military while enjoying the peace and prosperity that comes from the sacrifices of our armed forces.

Blackstone said:

What difference...does it make?

Click to expand...

The difference is that you acted on your beliefs and proved that they mattered to you in some way that wasn't just mouthing off at people that think differently than you. Even if it was just for a second, you lived a morally authentic life.

But we live in an era where every act of moral principle has to be world changing for anybody to think its worth their time.

Blackstone said:

A number which is dwarfed by the millions of radical liberal extremists calling for cuts to our military while enjoying the peace and prosperity that comes from the sacrifices of our armed forces.

Click to expand...

"Peace."

Prosperity is increasingly elusive as well.

Blackstone said:

A number which is dwarfed by the millions of radical liberal extremists calling for cuts to our military while enjoying the peace and prosperity that comes from the sacrifices of our armed forces.

Click to expand...

That is an absurd comparison. If you rail against big government and socialism, all the while your kids are on SCHIP, then its the very definition of hypocrisy.

In contrast, if you believe we can cut defense spending and still remain safe as a country because we outspend the next 18 nations or so combined on defense, then you have a policy position, you are not a hypocrite. You might be right and you might be wrong, but you are not a hypocrite.

An example of a hypocrite would be someone that was outwardly very concerned about the environment and global warming, yet drove a Hummer (or lived in a mansion - example: Al Gore).

Hypocrisy seems to be a way of life in America. Even our politicians - well, ESPECIALLY our politicians - are hypocrites. Can't legislate it, can't manage it.

radcen said:

Is it hypocritical to advocate the elimination of a benefit and yet take advantage of said benefit?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

It's hypocritical to advocate for the elimination of that benefit when you're not taking advantage of it, and then remain silent when you do take advantage of it.

It's hypocritical to advocate for the elimination of that benefit, but then come up with an exception to that elmination which would apply to you when you begin to take advantage of it.

But it's not hypocritical to want it eliminated but at the same time use it. Your desire to have it elminated won't, on it's own, cause it's elimination. And even though you want to see it end, that doesn't mean it's not likely still theoritically "costing" you in terms of your taxes going in part to pay for it (as our taxes go, in part, to pay for all government expenditures or programs).

Say you don't think your HOA needs to have a pool. There's a fair priced public pool just down the road, the increased insurance cost for the HOA is exorbidant in your mind, you dislike the fact it requires additional staff to actively run, and it is visited by a small number of actual residents. However, depsite your disagreement with the precense of the pool, your HOA requires everyone to pay $25 a month as a "pool fee". It would not be hypocritical of you to still go and use the pool at times, because your disagreement doesn't stop you from having to pay for it and you may as well get use out of what you're forced to pay for.