The Sally Struthers Tax

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jennyjennydz, Mar 19, 2004.

  1. jennyjennydz macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    #1
    I would be very interested in an intelligent discussion of the ideas folks here have for and against a Sally Struthers Tax.

    Basic tax: The government should act to eliminate child poverty in the US by enacting a flat "Sally Struthers Tax" of $1.00 per day (approx) on every American over 150% of the poverty line. This tax would be used exclusively to ensure that every child in the US is suitably housed, clothed, fed, and medically cared for.

    --
    Within 10 miles of most homes in the U.S. a child is going hungry.
    --

    Premise: Children are not to blame for their own poverty.
    I believe that children cannot be held responsible for their own poverty. Different people may choose to blame society, the government, the market, their parent(s), or any other of a list of options. But I believe that it is unreasonable and ethically unacceptable to blame the children themselves.

    Children are unable to choose their situation at birth. They didn't have the option in utero to select better parents, with better jobs and living in better neighborhoods. They could not choose, yet they suffer the consequences of those realities.

    Children are unable to support themselves. Children do not have the means by which to support themselves financially independent of their families. I think we'll all pass on the sacarastic argument of "put 'em to work at 8" and realize that child labor laws are in place for good reason. They cannot by their own actions reverse the consequences of their own poverty.

    Given that they didn't chose to be poor or to remain poor, I believe that they cannot be held responsible for the fact that they are poor.

    --
    Within 10 miles of most restaurants in this country a child is going to bed hungry.
    --

    Premise: The governement has a duty to protect and provide aid to those in society who cannot themselves.
    A simplified premise used to justify everything from public schools to social security to fire and police services to the military itself. Why have police? Why not let the rich people hire private security and everyone cross their fingers? Governement has obligations, that's why. And providing for the welfare and security of its citizens is the whole point I thought.

    If the government has a duty, and a need exists, the government must act. A Sally Struthers Tax would provide the closest guarantee fulfilling the duty and meeting the need.

    --
    Approximately 75,000 children will go to sleep tonight in poverty - lacking the basic food, clothes, housing and medical care needed to live a healthy life in the pursuit of happiness.
    --

    For $1.00 per day (approx) per working American making more than 150% of the current poverty level, The US governement could afford to spend over $1000 per child in poverty per month. Anyone who has ever paid their own bills can personally confirm that basic needs can be met with less than this.

    For the cost of 1 iTunes download per day every child in this country could be removed from poverty.

    For the less than the cost of most cups of coffee no child in this country would have to go to sleep hungry.

    For less than the cost of a bus ride every child would be able to sleep in a bed with a roof over their head.

    For less than the cost of a visit to McDonald's every child in this country would have access to the medical care they need to grow into happy and productive citizens.

    As Americans we have found it in our heart and wallets to have EVERY American taxpayer send an average of $445 per year to the country receiving the largest amount of US foregin aid as well as hundred per year to others. Why not spend another $365 on our own children or if you prefer, why not spend $365 of that on our own children?

    --
    Tonight, look at your dinner. Realize that within a few miles of most people America some child is lucky to be eating a few ketchup packets.
    --

    --
    Next time you or someone you know rails against abortion or Gays or the Ten Comandments in some courtroom or the pledge of allegiance or prayer in school, ask them or youselves if they would support this tax as an act of Christian charity, the kind Jesus spent most of his life promoting.
    --

    peace

    edit: i can splel
     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    sounds good to me but those rich guys will be screaming.
     
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    instead of a whole new class of taxes and bureaucracy, i'd suggest a compassionate congress / president enact a budget item for it. the collection mechanism is already in place. so is one solution -- food stamps.
     
  4. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #4
    In the federal budget, your idea would be classified under "Family Support". Currently, the government spends 1.2% of the budget for this -- as opposed to 18.8% for national defense, 7.1% for interest on the debt, etc.
    (Source: http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=federal_budget&list=8)

    I think there are a number of people who populate this board who think this number is already too high. You'll hear from them soon.

    The $87 billion dollars approved for Iraq recently, equals 106% of the entire education budget. Unless things change in the White House and Congress, I suspect that the amount of money spent on education, housing assistance, and other 'entitlements' will be decreased over the next few years, not increased. The goal is to starve these budgets by decreasing overall revenues (through tax cuts) forcing severe cuts to everything except defense.
     
  5. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #5
    yes put the money from my Wolfowitz tax into my Struthers tax
     
  6. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #6
    365x1=$365 a year? I would probably support that.

    here is the problem with Federal Tax: Those of us who live in areas like Southern California live "in poverty" at a higer rate of income than those living in, say, Arkansas. Meaning, it takes more to meet our basic needs. Why doesn't the Fed. Gov't. take this into account when determining poverty rate?
     
  7. jennyjennydz thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    #7
    The government doesn't take that into account for one sad reason. They don't want to be percerived as presiding over an increase in poor people, particularly poor children.

    Basically its the idea of -- there were 75,000 poor children under the last president, I the current president corrects the classification the number may rise to 85,000. That, while true, would make them look horrible. So they don't do it. Instead they publish their base figures using the traditional definitions and then add multiple alternates as sort of side notes. I used a high estimate for $$ sake.

    --

    WAR IS PEACE
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
     
  8. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #8
    Good point.
     
  9. jennyjennydz thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    #9
    Works fine for me. I have no problem not "adding" a new tax, but rather "reallocating" existing tax revenues. Nobody pays any more.

    BTW - food stamps are woefully underfunded, but an otherwise good start. As you said its one piece that could be used. Throw in housing, clothes and medical care and it can happen.

    Most Western European nations have already enacted laws to do exactly what the Sally Struthers tax would do. As a consequence, child poverty rates in Western Europe have fallen to levels that are miniscule compared to the US. No solution will reduce it to 0%, but we can make a best effort.

    --

    WAR IS PEACE
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
     
  10. Sparky's macrumors 6502a

    Sparky's

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    #10
    as of 21:44 EST the poulation of the United States was 292,841,137 (http://www.census.gov/population/www/index.html). So at $365 each = (damn my calculator won't go that high) $107,787,015,005 to feed the children. Unfortunately I think Sally Struthers would probably take most of that for herself.
     
  11. bbarnhart macrumors 6502a

    bbarnhart

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Location:
    Stilwell, Kansas
    #11
    Many individuals, including children, stay-at-home mothers, retirees and every person who does not work, do not earn %150 over the poverty line. So, at my home where 4 people live, my wife and my two daughters would not have to pay $365. Only I would have to pay (because I work and I'm assuming that I make %150 over the poverty line (whatever that is)).
     
  12. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #12
    i don't object to the boatload of taxes i pay...what i do object to is the way the money is allocated. children, health and education should be higher priorities. defense( or offense..) and the plethora of needless pork projects should be decreased. sadly, as long as most politicians are in the pocket of big business, things will not change.

    so the way my wife and i bypass the morass (that is our government) is by contributing directly to the causes we believe in. yes, it's like double taxation...but at least we know some of our money is getting to the proper destination.

    wouldn't it be nice if we could designate 50% of how our tax dollars should be spent. surely the politicians could find ample satisfaction pissing away the other 50%...

    btw, if you're interested in what happens when you protest your taxes...watch the documentary "an act of conscience".
     
  13. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #13
    Did you mean "children, health and education should be higher priorities than defense"? Or were you advocating increasing the defense budget? After all, no country in the world even comes close to spending what we do on defense.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #14
    i've edited my previous post for clarification....

    i would think my neo-hippie peace symbol avatar would be a clue though. ;):D
     
  15. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    so the US spends more $$ on defense than the next 12* nations combined. $399 billion vs. $282 billion.

    * just based on that graph. even if the next 117 nations spent as much as $1 billion (the lowest figure on the graph), the US would still be spending more than the next 129 nations. is it safe to say the US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined?
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    If US corporations were made to pay their proper taxes, every child in the WORLD could probably receive the same benefits from the proceeds....
     
  17. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #17
    That's what I figured -- but it gave me a great opportunity to use the image upload button again!
     

Share This Page