Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Everyone wants equality.

"Steal from the rich to give to the poor." It seems like a worthy cause - why not take some from those who have "too much" in order to assist those who don't even have enough to live "comfortably?" This sentiment seems to prevail in today's society. However, who is to decide who is rich? Who is to decide who should be assisted? I also ask, why should the rich be more responsible for the well being of others, as well as this nation, than those who are less well off?

Obama has stated that one of his goals if he were to become president would be to increase the income tax of those who make more than $250,000 per year to 39.5%.

That's ridiculous!

What is wrong with people who believe that it's fair to tax someone nearly half of their income? And that's only in income tax. There's still social security tax, Medicaid/Medicare tax, sales tax, gas tax, and the list goes on. Everyone wants equality, but I see no equality in taxes. If people want equality, then everyone should pay the same in taxes - that way each person pitches in their fair share.

It's, of course, been said that the rich are paying "their fair share." And yet, they are the ones who receive the least in return. When heating becomes expensive, the government isn't there assisting them; when their children go to college, they won't receive any federal aid (other than a few thousand from Stafford which they end up paying back with interest) because their parents make "too much money".

Why should the so called "rich" give up so much of their money when the majority of people being helped are those who are well able to work? Those who make more money use the same roads, same school systems, same police and firemen forces, and are governed by the same government and yet the privileged are those who make less.

What people don't seem to realize is that those making $150,000, $200,000, $250,000, etc are not "rich", especially when they get taxed at least a quarter of their income to income tax alone. They're high middle class. And, most likely, they worked hard to get to where they are, by going to college, or opening a business, or providing a service, and working hard to make the money they have.

Like I asked before, why should the "rich" be more responsible, when they receive the least for their efforts and dedication, and get taxed the most for it in return? Rather than reward those who can work but choose not to, or those who made bad decisions in the past, the government should leave them to lay in the bed they made. The government isn't there to support people who don't help themselves.

Everyone needs a little help sometime. It's during those time that the government should help cushion the harsh blow of real life. But those who choose to not go to college, or choose to not save money for their personal retirement, or choose to have children when they can't support them, do not have a right to be assisted, they have a privilege, and they need to realize that. Assistance should be given to those who help themselves, so until those people start dedicating themselves to making their own lives better, the government shouldn't aid them whatsoever.

As a college student who's paying for her own college because my father "makes too much money", I must say I'm appalled. I worked hard in school to do well and get into the University of Texas. And yet I receive no government help, when those who didn't work as hard get free rides because their parents are poor. Why should I work to get my diploma, dedicate myself in order to ascend the proverbial ladder in order to make more money and provide more for my family, when the more I make, the less I receive, and on top of that I have to pay for the mistakes of others? And that is what the government teaches its people. Rather than pushing the citizens of the United States to work hard and provide for themselves, the government is willing to accept and coddle mediocrity, laziness, and irresponsibility.

Bad, bad.

To end this, I'm not saying to stop taxing or to stop assisting those who truly need help, like the disabled, or people who fall into hard times for whatever reason. Everyone needs help sometime. I simply think that those who worked hard to get to where they are shouldn't be used as the scapegoat of the government, and the people who choose to not help themselves. It's not the government, and thus the tax payers, who should be responsible for the mistakes of those who don't plan for the future.

Everyone wants equality. Why not make each person equally responsible for their own futures? ...Naw, those rich bastards will take care of it.

1 comment:

Jonny said...

I absolutely agree with your commentary. It is completely absurd that people are backing up Obama and his "rich" tax. Taking more from the "rich" than what is already being done to give to the poor is outlandish. People work their butts off earning enough money to live a lifestyle they enjoy, and now Obama wants to come in here and heavily tax the hard workers of America to give to the poor. Now I am not saying that those who aren't rich are not hard workers. I am saying that those who are rich tend to be the harder workers of society. This policy of Obama's is Communism where everyone has different jobs but gets paid the same. Making everyone "equal" is not what Americans should strive for and Obama has gone way out of line.