This is just me kicking around some thoughts to Corey's last posting. Bear with me?
So there will be lower taxes for 90-95% of the people under Barack Obama.
The 5-10% who pay more will not be taxed into poverty by any means. More notably, they will not be taxed into equality of income by any stretch of the imagination (that would be communism that nobody wants).
Tax cuts will take place for those 90-95% of people. The money "redistribution" would come in the form of government programs to help people who cannot afford things like healthcare for kids. (Not to be confused with mandatory healthcare, as Obama only wants mandatory healthcare for kids.)
Essentially, aren't taxes always wealth "redistribution?"
Is everything done for poor people considered to be a "handout?"
OR, in other words, At what point do we decide that some people simply do not deserve help.
It can't be simple, its not black and white.
Perhaps we need to cut funding on some crappy government excess programs and research grants in order to create an oversight so that people who need help really get it, and the free loaders do not.
Let's face it, many people do need help. Many people do not.
We cannot leave the truly needy people high and dry (sorry for the cliche, but that's what it is).
Living and working in Milwaukee for a few years now, I have seen many poor people who ARE trying to make it, some of them will, some of them won't without help.
Realistically, and unfortunately, the notion that charities will help everyone is simply not true.
(By the way, why do people feel the need to buy $1,000 purses? Just wondering, they keep coming through the store I work at... what a waste of money that could be used for better things).
I have seen many poor people who are simply ignorant due to the horrible education system. It breeds a cycle where uneducated parents struggle to raise uneducated kids who are sent to a crappy educational system to learn... well not much.
"Well then they shouldn't have kids, DAVE!" Once again, this brings us to education. Specifically sex education, but it's all linked together. Crappily funded education systems breed crappy citizenry.
One charity that deserves a lot of blame in this area is The CHURCH which provides sex education with strings attached. Is it really helping people and being realistic to promote abstinence-only faith-based programs to people who have little to no education? umm...nope, but he Church refuses to teach safe-sex.
The church and AIDS... yikes don't get me started on that. Mother Theresa was quoted as saying that AIDS "is just a retribution for improper sexual misconduct."
Maybe try providing a full education where people, like those in Africa, who have never heard of condom use or safe sex, get a full picture and can choose safe-sex as an option, rather than forcing their views on the "virtue" of abstinence.
Crappy education, lack of education, underfunded education systems... Let's face it, if you lack what many would consider to be common sense, it's hard to function in the world.
You might say "ignorance is no excuse" for these "handouts" but, that doesn't solve the underfunded crappy education problem that is going on in this city and in many others.
The article has some wrong numbers, or at least descriptor words, for who would fall into what tax brackets.
From everything I have looked up that $40,000 number should actually be tied to this:
A single parent making $40,000 with 2 children would get a $2,100 tax cut.
The article seems to try to say that there is some sort of sliding tax glass ceiling for people as they make more money? I'm not sure where they got that idea.