jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (8 posts)

Why must the poor pay?

  1. Charles James profile image85
    Charles Jamesposted 5 years ago

    In these days of historically low interest rates home owners, who by definition are not the poorest, are doing very nicely. Those who are in wellpaid jobs are on the whole quite well off in absolute terms, and compared with before the crash.

    The jobs government are cutting are largely low paid jobs delivering important services to those who need them, disproportionately the poor. The pensions being attacked are those in public service, who are low paid.

    But todays "losers" are not the people who gained. So why should the poor have to pay when they are less well placed to pay and it is not their fault?  Why not ask the well off to pay proportionately more and let the poor off for a change?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You act like "being poor" is a disease that people are born with and can't shake off.

      Newsflash - everyone had a chance at a public school to prove that they could educate themselves and deliver productivity to the market place.

      Many people chose to waive this privilege, and many of these people either became poor, or continued to stay poor.

      Also, you ignored the fact that all these jobs you're talking about are paid for through theft. Taxes are collected from the poor, too, y'know.

      I could point out more flaws in the argument, but I'm sure no one will listen.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, you missed the point.

        Some people want to serve, they willingly take up low paid jobs, not always because that's all they can get but because they want to do it, whether they be library assistants, care assistants or road sweepers.

        Why, when these people aren't responsible for the actions of the bankers et al, should they be expected to pay whilst the bankers etc still draw their high salaries and bonuses.

        BTW to go to a public school in the UK is a privilege reserved for the wealthy.

    2. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This is untrue. Many people who were home owners have actually walked away from their homes, because they could no longer afford them. So much for them doing very nicely.
      There were plenty of people doing well before the crash, however, even after the crash, many people who were well off or doing well, stopped being that.
      I find this statement difficult to see happening, simply because all the government knows how to do is hire or let go of people. It only makes sense that they would not let go of the people on the lower end of the scale. To cut costs, it would be more advisable to cut the more highly paid people. This is just an example of the government failure to do it's job in the first place.
      This is no doubt. It's nothing new.
      Of course not, the government loves to show the public it doesn't have a clue, yet the people fail to see it, so the government continues to do it, because the people let them.
      How is their situation/circumstance NOT their own fault? Are these people NOT in control over their life? Are these people NOT able to learn?
      Each person should be doing their part, in the overall growth of America, not just sectors of America's citizenship.

    3. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for your confidence.  I am one of those homeowners doing so well.  Laid off twice in 2 years and drawing from the meager remains of my IRA to keep my home.  Wondering just how I will retire in only 4 years with nothing but SS to support me.  One of those, in other words, that you want to pay the bills.

      Meanwhile, my area has decided to require teachers (mostly making far more than I ever did when considering they only work part time and have huge bennies) to pay (gasp) 25% of their own insurance. 

      As costs got so high that I must now pay 100% of my own if I want it (I do but can't afford it) I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for those demanding that I continue to support their own inflated insurance costs while being unable to fund my own.  Thank God the levy to force to do just that was voted down, mostly by those same homeowners that, like myself, are having a really hard time simply keeping their homes.

      Sorry, Charles, there are relatively few public servants that are underpaid, and doubly so when all their bennies are included.  The IRA I live off of was funded by myself, not by the public.  The small 401K I have was funded primarily by myself, not the public.  I don't see a real reason to fund such things for those that already "earn" more money for fewer hours of "work" that require less education or experience than I have.

      Let them do their share as well.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        UK vs US wilderness, traditionally in the UK people chose the job security of public service over the higher pay but higher risk of private enterprise.

        Our PM even said today that public servants should expect to work longer because they will live longer!

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Why not ask the well off to pay proportionately more and let the poor off for a change?" Can you be rich and poor at the same time, meaning think like the rich and poor at the same time?

  3. Charles James profile image85
    Charles Jamesposted 5 years ago

    Someone who has lost his job in the recession will of course no longer be well off. Fear of losing your home and fear of poverty in old age are very real, particularly if you are approaching retirement age.

    But if you have not lost your job, and you are on a good income, your mortgage costs are currently very low because of the low interest rates. You could afford to pay more towards the deficit created by the bankers and the other thieves.

    Given that the poor have not had a reduction in their rents, their capacity to pay is much less than that of the rich and middling. So why does the burden fall on the poor?

    And Evan, poverty is close to being a disease. I am starting a different forum hub on that to keep this discusssion on track.