Published: Tuesday, Nov. 19 2013 11:55 p.m. MST
Don't you just love the stereotypes and the vitriol expressed in class
warfare?Not all of the 47% who get benefits from the government are
lazy bums. Not all the rich people are unethical robber-barons who have
factories full of child labor slaves.Rich people should definitely
pay more taxes than poor people (which they would automatically do even with a
flat tax). But they should not be expected to carry all the burden of our tax
and spend government.Poor people should be helped by given
necessities if they can't (not won't) earn them themselves. They
should also have more opportunities to better their lives and encouraged to make
it on their own. A "hand-up" instead of a "hand-out" approach
would benefit everyone, especially the poor.
Chris,A photo shoot of excessive homes morphs into Which Romney v
President Obama...Sad.My thoughts center around moving
all the stuff from HV to SLC and then back to HV.Yikes!Thanks for the home tour as well as your "moving" personal adventure
Amen, NeilT. And the 47% that Mitt was rightfully mocked for criticizing is
almost all made up of working people who make money for the 1%, who have
mortgages and families that give them tax exemptions. That refers only to those
who did not have to pay federal income tax. They still paid about 30% of their
income on state and local taxes, property taxes, gasoline tax, and other fees.
Those other taxes and fees only make a blip on the income of the 1%, but they
scream bloody murder about paying even that. I love the Korihor comparison!
Read the short story by Leo Tolstoy, "How Much Land Does a Man Require?"
A man lusts for land and forfeits everything. In the end, all the real estate
man requires is a plot 6 feet long by 6 feet deep!
NeilT. When Democrats clamor for the rich to start paying their "fair
share," that doesn't qualify as class warfare? When the scriptures say
that "he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the
laborer," that's really the source of the Republican approach to class
warfare? My misunderstanding. Blaming the rich for the poor being poor
accomplishes resentment and contention, too, only it holds no remedy.
Perhaps this might be an opportunity for us all to reflect on our many ancestors
who toiled and sacrificed to generate some measure of property not for
themselves but to pass on to their descendants. Who can tell me from which
side of the aisle the idea of "death taxes" as high as 100% has been
promoted and which side of the aisle continues to battle for returning those
rights of property not to the government but to the family of those who toiled
to generate it?
@NeilT. I'm fully aware of Ayn Rand's philosophy and you are correct
that she was an atheist and advocated survival of the fittest. However, that
wasn't the point of my mentioning the book. I mentioned the book because
the story line mirrors much of the mentality that we see in our country today:
"it isn't fair if you have something that i don't." And...I
didn't bring religion into this discussion--you did. I was neither
advocating atheism nor promoting humanism. And...I've read the Book of
Mormon cover to cover many times so get off your high horse. The point of the
discussion was not whether we have a responsibility to help others but rather
whether others have the right to demand financial equality at the expense of
others. One of the biggest social ills of our day is the growing number of
people who believe and demand that somebody take care of their every need. We
have a growing population of professional welfare scammers who are resentful and
covetous of those who have something they do not. The Lord certainly didn't
advocate a welfare lifestyle. The Democrats did that.
Nobody blames the poor for being poor but we do blame the poor that want what
others have without earning it. I came from nothing and now have a little and I
will share with you but just don't try to take it.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments