Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Politricks?


One summer, I took a creative writing class. At one point we received random words (or something) and used them to make a poem. One girl wrote this “haiku” (It is so awesome I don’t even frown upon it not technically being a haiku)



She had no head for politics

But up her sleeve she had a bag of tricks

Hmm… politricks.



I am not well versed in politics. But today, a dear friend and I talked about some of the things going on in America- mainly the Occupy Wall Street protests going on. And, perhaps because I have no classes today and thus have a lot of spare time, I felt compelled to blog about some of the things we talked about.



First off, I hadn`t even heard of the Occupy Wall Street protests. After a bit of reading and talking, it seems to me that they are a group of “disillusioned and dissatisfied” (from one of the many articles I read) people with wide and varied agendas, but in general believe that 99% of Americans are being oppressed by the richest 1%. They want the richest people to be taxed more.



Something like that sounds so simple, right? They make more money, so they should pay more to the government. But I am not sure I can agree with that sentiment. Here are some flaws I see in the Occupy Wall Street demands.



+Yes, there are some people- movie stars, professional sports players- who make ridiculously large amounts of money without needing to “invest” a lot of money into their careers. But, when I think of the wealthy Americans who will be affected by tax increases like these, I instantly think of doctors and the like. Yeah, doctors make a lot of money. But they have also invested a lot to get where they are. Before they even started working, the went to school for years, studied very hard, and sacrificed a lot to get where they are. Once they started working, the have to pay off student loans and continue to invest into their profession, paying large amounts for malpractice insurance. If someone makes 500,000 a year, and they are taxed 33%, they still take home 360,000 a year. And yeah, that is still a LOT of money. But they still need to repay a few hundred thousands of dollars in student loans, pay for malpractice insurance, and other fees I am sure I don`t know about.



Tax brackets. If you make over a certain amount of money, you pay more taxes (I think that`s how they work, right?) Eventually, you get to a point where it is not worth it to work more because most of what you make will be taken away. If you make basically the same amount working 50 hours a week as you do working 80 hours, why in the world would you work those extra 30 hours? And those unworked hours result in less money earned for the company, which means they can hire fewer workers/pay less to their employees (Am I wrong in assuming this? Please educate me if I am J )



While it may be true that history shows cutting taxes for the rich does not increase jobs, how can we be sure that taxing the rich will NOT decrease jobs?



+They argue that corporations, banks, and the wealthy in America are corrupt. True, there are some corporations, banks, and people who are corrupt. But I fail to see how taxing them more will solve corruption. (If anything, wouldn`t it encourage corruption- finding ways to avoid paying taxes, etc?)



But in fact, I think my number one issue with taxes in general is what they are used for. I believe that it is better to invest money to teaching people how to help themselves (how to live without the government`s monetary assistance) than it is to pay for people when they fall down.



Now, I definitely agree that we NEED some kind of safety net to catch people when they fall down. We shouldn`t just let people die because they happened to lose their job, or because they got pregnant young, or because they are disabled in any way. But, I believe that such care needs to have conditions, as well. Are the recipients doing all they can to help themselves? If they can work, are they? Even if it`s a minimum wage job, are they doing what they can to support themselves, as well? Are they actively looking for a job if they do not have one? Etc. If there is one thing that irritates me, it is people who live off the system and do nothing to improve their own situation. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of a happiness may be every man`s right, but that does not mean that the government, or hard-working Americans, should- or need to- foot the bill for someone too lazy to take care of themselves.



And I think that takes me to what I really think is at least one of the roots of our economic problems: people`s attitudes. What is the “American Dream”? Last time I checked, it was gaining wealth and happiness through hard work. Our inalienable rights are not just handed to use on a silver platter. Just because we are alive doesn’t mean we deserve to be rich. It doesn’t mean we deserve to have the same things as everyone else. It means we have the ability to achieve everything we want through our own actions.



Yes, some people have worked truly hard and have, by not fault of their own, fallen on hard times. As I stated above, I think they deserve financial support and help until they can once again take care of themselves. But I cannot shake the feeling that much of the debt and economic problems come from people`s credit-addictions. “I want it now, I can have it now, and I will pay for it later.” There is not hard-work, saving, or careful consideration involved in this type of mindset. People want the American Dream, but they want it now. They don’t want to wait or work hard for it. Necessities are confused with conveniences. Television is not a necessity. Satellite is not a necessity. Yes, even CELL PHONES are not a necessity! You CAN live very cheaply. But it requires sacrifice and is tough.



The way to solve our economic problems, especially in the long run, is to change the way Americans view needs and wants. Teach them how to budget, teach them how to live within their means.  Avoid buying things just because you want them (since when has desire been an acceptable standard for correct behavior?). Work hard, be smart, take responsibility for yourself.



When I see people protesting like the Occupy Wall street group is, I cant help but feel that many of them are simply demanding that the rich pay for the things they want, but  are unwilling to work for or can`t afford.




So those are my thoughts on the matter. Don`t agree? Fantastic! I would honestly love to hear your opinions, especially if you phrase them in a respectful way. I try not to be a hater, so I would really appreciate the same.


On another note, what do you think about localized healthcare? How could it be set up? Would it work? What problems could it encounter? I am very intrigued with this possibility and would love to hear others` ideas

4 comments:

  1. 1. http://thehairpin.com/2011/10/the-best-time-i-occupied-wall-street These are the kind of people that the government helped out. Not all bankers suck, but these people seem remorseless and overall just gross.

    2. http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ I can't read all of these stories from hard-working American citizens without getting upset. These families could be my family, when my grandfather got cancer, my mother got sick, the stock market plunged, I was at an expensive school, and my father almost lost his job. These students could be you or I. They worked hard, held down jobs, excelled at school, and then got completely screwed by circumstances outside their control. It's easy to fall, and it's hard to pick yourself back up, especially in this economic climate. I deferred grad school because of financial circumstances -- I realize a higher education is a privilege, but I let fears about student debt and my family's financial situation temporarily stop me from what I really want to do. And a state where even educated and well-employed adults like me are fearful is not an ideal state to be in.

    3. I fail to see how cutting taxes in the private sector will trickle down and improve the increasingly ghastly state of things in the public education sector. How we can cut teacher salaries and federal student loans while letting the very people responsible for the recession off easier than they had it before this all happened, when education is the best way for the hard-working to improve their lives, is unjust and unconscionable. We're only hurting ourselves in the long run.

    4. It is against private corporations' interests for Americans to spend less money, and they're the ones running the show. The media is saturated with messages of consumption. In a political climate where large corporations are being let off easy, despite the layoffs that are still happening, who's going to teach people to budget and to save money? Not the corporations themselves. They rule pop culture, and for the large part pop culture influences societal culture, and consequently affects individual behavior. So, then what? Public service ad campaigns? Underpaid teachers?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think this protest is more about closing the gap between rich and poor than it is about raising taxes. America now has the largest gap between the upper and lower classes in the world.

    Also, the 1% aren't doctors or even actors, they're for the most part CEO's and business executives. The people who get paid way too much for what they do.

    That's been my take on it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://i.imgur.com/kamRX.jpg

    Actually this explains it nicely as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not up on the wallstreet protests, but because I work at a bank I've become aware of the Durbin legislation that I believe just passed.
    The idea is that the debit/credit companies can't charge beyond x amount for a card to swipe. I think this will decrease revenue for them by about 60%. The idea: the company can pass on savings to the consumer, since they usually raise their prices to cover the cost of a card swipe fee (which the consumer does not directly pay). Nice idea...but I don't think companies will do this. Yes this helps small businesses...but I think Walmart was in strong support so they wouldn't have to deal with the fees. Don't get me wrong, I shop at Walmart too...but I can't help but think they'd rather get the money than the financial institutions.
    Problem--yes there is a problem with this. The result of this law is that many banks are having to charge consumers in various ways: ie some banks are limiting the number of transactions that can be made per month with a debit card...others are starting to charge fees for more of their accounts, or charging fees if you have access to this or that service.

    A little about the Durbin legislation:
    http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/inc-well/Durbin-Announces-Legislation-to-Help-with-Debit-Fees-130649368.html

    ReplyDelete