Posted by kylenn on August 8, 2006, at 21:50:29
In reply to Re: Yikes! I agree with Auntiemel, posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 20:13:18
I must with kindness disagree with Estella.
I do not think the reason why most people choose a life in front of the t.v. is because they do not think they can do anything meaningful.
That is not logical, because I cannot think of anything less meaningful (short of criminal activity, but we are talking about something good or useful) I cannot think of anything LESS meaningful than sitting in front of t.v. for the major part of every day of every week for the rest of your life.
Now, I think that they may actually think that whatever job they get is stupid and doesn't pay enough and they can make just as much sitting at home. THAT I believe.
But that is because they CAN make just as much, and have a much more lesiurely life, by just staying at home.
Any person, with all else being equal, would rather relax than perform menial tasks.
I know I would!
But that is the crux of the problem.
A person that sweeps the streets for a living should DEFINITELY be better off financially than the person who sits in front of the t.v.
and the person who sits in front of the t.v. should ONLY be doing so if he CAN'T work, not just because he has chosen not to.
And sifting through those who choose to and those who have no choice would be easier if the definition of disabled was better delineated and structured and that if the difference between a life in front of the t.v. and the life sweeping streets was enough to where a person may actually choose to sweep and only watch t.v. after work!
Less people unfairly getting disability would automatically mean more money in the pot for workers! And if we do away with income tax and put in a federal sales tax and tax the blankety blank out of luxury spending then the person sweeping the streets would have more money for the necesseties and maybe even some for the un-essentials, like going to the movies or out to eat which would be taxed, but not as much as luxuries and sins. (and these would be in black and white with no fuzzy definitions or loopholes)
A yacht is a yacht is a yacht.
No loophole. I don't care if it is your house.
No body NEEDS to live in a yacht.
Anything over 1500 square feet per person on the ground would be considered excessive and taxed accordingly.
These are just a couple of examples; but to be merciful, I'll stop there.
But the street sweeper and the t.v. watcher should not share the same amenities. I am NOT saying punish the t.v. watcher; just REWARD the street sweeper so he is not tempted to do what anyone would do if there was no difference in the amount of change in his pocket.
And don't tax his income.
That will help solve a lot of this.
I am sorry, I just do not think that they choose to "become disabled" or "get on disability" for some illness, real or imagined or faked, because they cannot do anything meaningful.
It is because they get the same amount of money and better health care if they don't work than if they do work.
That is the problem.
The able should work, and they should be rewarded.
The disabled should not have to work, and they should not be punished, their needs should be taken care of; they should not suffer.
The rewarding of the worker is essential
Like I have said.
National health care is OK as long is the money comes from some sort of federal sales tax, especially a sin tax, and not out of my medical assistant's 10 hours of over time that she didn't get paid more than $30 for because it was all taken out in taxes.
And not out of the money I COULD be putting towards an eventual retirement (right now, zero is how much I can afford to put back, but w/o income tax, I could to put back a tad more.)
The disabled should have their needs met; the street sweeper should have a little bit more.
Period.
Besides, I like a nice clean street, and to me, that is a very important, and meaningful job.
And so is working at McDonald's (I did) and so is a security guard. (I don't think telephone marketing is so meaningful, but I am sure they are meaningful to the companies who hire them!!
I admire them just for taking that job!)
poster:kylenn
thread:674781
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060610/msgs/675058.html