Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 114

Thread: How did your taxes turn out?

  1. #101
    Senior Member SteveinMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Saint Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,373
    Huh. I think I got the answer I expected. Thanks.
    Last edited by SteveinMN; 5-14-19 at 6:42pm. Reason: better wording
    Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome. - Booker T. Washington

  2. #102
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,148
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveinMN View Post
    Huh. I think I got the answer I expected. Thanks.
    I don't know what answer you expected, I can only reiterate my belief that government should be a safety net, not a one stop fix for everyone who doesn't want to be inconvenienced by their relatives.

    Non-governmental charities such as Catholic Relief, Shriners, St. Judes or a host of others, supplemented by the comfort and care of millions of well-meaning individuals can go a long way if they're allowed to help.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  3. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    7,322
    Interesting you never answered any of my questions Alan.

  4. #104
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,530
    My grandfather was orphaned/abandonned as an infant. Since he was born in 1903 there was no "safety net" to take care of him. Instead he was an "inconvenience" to various relatives. Until he was 10 years old and decided that life would be better if he dropped out of school and got a job to support himself so he could get away from those inconvenienced relatives. I don't know what horrors he had to endure, he never shared that with anyone to my knowledge, but for a ten year old kid to decide that he was better off taking care of himself I can only assume it was pretty bad. Personally I'll take the government safety net over that.

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    7,322
    Jp, researching my grandparents past has just turned up horrible stories and they were wonderful people.
    Last edited by Teacher Terry; 5-15-19 at 12:09pm.

  6. #106
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,530
    TT, Once my grandfather was an adult his life was equally difficult. His wife came down with tuberculosis not long after they married, so during my dad's childhood grandpa worked at a brick foundry in order to support his 3 kids, his wife who lived in a state tuberculosis hospital for as long as my father could remember, and his in-laws. FIL had polio so they had installed a chain driven hoist to get him out of bed in the morning. This was in SW Missouri. Grandpa had heard that if he could move his wife to a less humid climate she'd live longer. But that wasn't an option because he had a good (ie reliable, steady) job at the foundry. So she died. A couple of months later penicillin became an easily available thing and everyone in the state tuberculosis hospital took a few pills, went home and lived happily ever after. At the time I imagine the family just accepted this as "just the way it is". Today I would hope that people would expect better. I certainly would. But apparently some people would be fine with that early 1940's perspective of life.

  7. #107
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    14,307
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    My grandfather was orphaned/abandonned as an infant. Since he was born in 1903 there was no "safety net" to take care of him. Instead he was an "inconvenience" to various relatives. Until he was 10 years old and decided that life would be better if he dropped out of school and got a job to support himself so he could get away from those inconvenienced relatives. I don't know what horrors he had to endure, he never shared that with anyone to my knowledge, but for a ten year old kid to decide that he was better off taking care of himself I can only assume it was pretty bad. Personally I'll take the government safety net over that.
    I am not sure why you think the foster care system is any better than a series of patched together households of relatives. It is pretty much the same thing. I guess there is a reason why social workers attempt to place children with relatives, the familial bond is supposed to have impact.

    There are many many wonderful foster parents tho, so I do not want to denigrate those people. Just as there are many many wonderful relatives who take in related children not their own.

    In my family, my aunts, uncles, and grandparents would have made a 1000% better home for my brother and me should we have become orphans than would the disinterested state of Iowa. Same for DHs family.

  8. #108
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Teacher Terry View Post
    Interesting you never answered any of my questions Alan.
    Because they had nothing to do with the premise of the argument several of you are pounding me on, but I'll summarize them and give it a shot.

    1. Do I have enough money to support everyone in my family? No
    2. Do I find anyone in my family to be so disagreeable that I wouldn't like having them live with me? Yes

    Neither of those lines of questioning change my opinion that the primary responsibility of care for family resides on the individual, with government as the safety net of last resort. I'm not sure why saying that is so offensive.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  9. #109
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    9,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Because they had nothing to do with the premise of the argument several of you are pounding me on, but I'll summarize them and give it a shot.

    1. Do I have enough money to support everyone in my family? No
    2. Do I find anyone in my family to be so disagreeable that I wouldn't like having them live with me? Yes

    Neither of those lines of questioning change my opinion that the primary responsibility of care for family resides on the individual, with government as the safety net of last resort. I'm not sure why saying that is so offensive.
    As Progressive as I am with these kinds of policies, I want to support Alan insofar as believing that social support has helped to dismantle bonds of family to some extent. When I interview Indiian doctors and families, there is a cultural world of difference between them and us. I did a project on schizophrenia, and in India, the families are the caregivers for mentally disabled children, parents, etc. They see it as their responsibility (plus there are no government safety nets), and I'm sure it is a heavy burden. But they are completely supportive of each other in other ways.

    One Indian psychiatrist was absolutely taken aback to hear that one of her patients gave gas money to her father for a ride to her session. Her Indian patients are accompanied by parents, grandparents, siblings, all piled up in the waiting room. So those are two extremes, and the middle way, of course, would be best.

    Unfortunately, there are tons of people with no family to take them in. No family willing to take them in. And if we can't legislate monies to support basic needs for people, we also can't legislate that families MUST house and feed their family members. So I'm wondering what the Republican/Libertarian answer to that is.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  10. #110
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    14,307
    Quote Originally Posted by catherine View Post
    As Progressive as I am with these kinds of policies, I want to support Alan insofar as believing that social support has helped to dismantle bonds of family to some extent. When I interview Indiian doctors and families, there is a cultural world of difference between them and us. I did a project on schizophrenia, and in India, the families are the caregivers for mentally disabled children, parents, etc. They see it as their responsibility (plus there are no government safety nets), and I'm sure it is a heavy burden. But they are completely supportive of each other in other ways.

    One Indian psychiatrist was absolutely taken aback to hear that one of her patients gave gas money to her father for a ride to her session. Her Indian patients are accompanied by parents, grandparents, siblings, all piled up in the waiting room. So those are two extremes, and the middle way, of course, would be best.

    Unfortunately, there are tons of people with no family to take them in. No family willing to take them in. And if we can't legislate monies to support basic needs for people, we also can't legislate that families MUST house and feed their family members. So I'm wondering what the Republican/Libertarian answer to that is.
    I do not accept your premise that we “can’t legislate monies to support basic needs for people… “.


    Clearly we have billions of dollars going to social welfare programs. Once again, my tax burden is dismissed as in adequate on this website. And I will ask the question: just how much exactly do I have to pay to make y’all happy?


    To be fair, I think my federal tax burden was pretty damn low this year, But my state tax burden was pretty damn high, so there you go.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •