Who Decides Where Our Money Should Go?

Published on January 25, 2009 By JillUser In Politics

On another blog taxes were compared to slavery because for some, half of their work goes to the government. Many voice the opinion that those people have plenty and that money should be given to those who “need” it more. If it can be judged by others that one person has more than they “need”, shouldn’t the people having their money taken get to judge what is “needed” by those on the receiving end?

I say, if you are receiving government money, you get disqualified if any of your money is spent on things that aren’t a “necessity”. If you have money to spend on cigarettes, concert tickets, new clothes (you can get perfectly good clothes at used clothing stores), etc., then you don’t “need” money from the government. Oh, I bet that doesn’t sound nice does it?

I’m fed up with being told what I do or don’t “need”. I’m sick of people saying that they wouldn’t take any amount of money if it meant having to work on the holidays or be on call 24hrs a day. Fine, that’s the choice you make. Live with your choices. Their are trade offs. The person who works around the clock does it for whatever goals they have. They should be able to enjoy the benefits that they traded that time for. They shouldn’t have to make those sacrifices only to turn around and share with those unwilling to do the same.

If you work and save and take on tremendous responsibilities, you shouldn’t have to be judged on how you enjoy the rewards unless it is hurting someone else. People don’t usually start a business (unless it’s a nonprofit) merely to benefit others. People usually take on the responsibility and added work of running a company because they have their own goals. Maybe they want to live a jet set life, own fancy cars, impress others or maybe they just want to have a lot of money to take care of their loved ones the way they see fit. They should have the right to fulfill those goals when they find success. That is what I was taught about the American dream. If you can dream it, you can live it. Now it seems if you can dream it and it is within what the majority thinks you should have, then you can live it.

Comments (Page 5)

cactoblasta

on Jan 30, 2009

In other words tradition is out, considered old school, yadda yadda. And since administrators here aren't accountable (technically) to the public..meaning can't be voted out and civil service makes it difficult to fire people...well ya see where I'm going with this?

Accountability will come I guess. It'll have too.

It's a threat, certainly, but having said that I'm not convinced elected reps are necessarily better. It's really a matter of deciding which evil is lesser.

That's a nice distinction. There are think tanks here I guess...but we call them lobbyists...hahahaha.

I'm speaking more of the cabinet/caucus level policy decisions, with plenty of staffers to provide party-line advice to ministers where needed. It's a bit of duplication, but it can mean even opposition (shadow) ministers have the ability to analyse PS-provided policy advice with a good basis for better decisions. In situations where parties don't vote identically - such as the US - party policy is more diffuse and weaker when it comes to directing ministerial/secretarial action, so what happens in Oz probably isn't applicable to the US, particularly when it comes to uniformity in administrative education.

JillUser

on Jan 30, 2009

what happens in Oz probably isn't applicable to the US, particularly when it comes to uniformity in administrative education

What works for a population of 21M quite likely won't work for a population of 304M either.

I don't think you are doing this in any way so don't take this as a personal assault- I am tired of people pointing to how people in The Netherlands do things or in ________________ (insert name of small country). Trying to establish systems in the US is like trying to unite all of Europe to conform. That's why States have differing issues.

I understand why we need taxes. I understand why people with more money need to pay more and those with no money can't pay anything. I just want to know who thinks that it is alright for people to judge how others spend their money but think they shouldn't be judged for how they spend theirs. Everyone has their reasons for wanting to pursue whatever it is they're pursuing in life. Just as I don't think a person with 18 kids should have to hand over one of them to a couple who can't have any of their own, I don't think it is right for someone to declare "they have way more than they need so they should have to pay even more".

I'm not talking about law here. I'm talking about sentiment and that is the sentiment going around. When the VP of the US says that it is "Patriotic" to pay taxes, I have a problem. When people won't take a job because they think it is "beneath them" but will happily take government assistance, I have a problem.

One of the big things that got us through the Depression as a society was a sense of pride. My grandma grew up in that era. Try to give her a "hand out". She'd sooner mend socks and reuse sandwich bags to make ends meet on her own. This generation thinks that they are owed everything everyone else has and shouldn't have to work their way up to it.

Someone commented earlier wondering if I was just afraid that I'd get it all taken away by the masses who have judged that I have too much. I'm not afraid. I grew up with nothing and have the comfort of knowing that I can be happy no matter what I have or don't have materialistically. It's the people who grew up with plenty who now don't because they never worked toward anything who are judging that I have too much. I just don't want to be the Ant to their Grasshopper.

cactoblasta

on Jan 30, 2009

What works for a population of 21M quite likely won't work for a population of 304M either.

Totally. But I honestly had thought the way the American public service worked was similar to the Australian model, bar that most of your upper level staff were political appointees. What Tova's been explaining is a real eye-opener.

In terms of what I was saying which drew your comment about nation size, I don't think ideological unity and party voting are impractical in a Congress and Senate of any size - you have, what, 1000 elected officials in houses of government? There's no reason your two political parties couldn't formulate policy en masse and vote as one on everything. India, which is much bigger than the US, has a party political system with Westminster-style party voting. So you see it can happen. That's just not part of your experience and, equally, not necessarily the best way of doing things.

But it's not impossible and the size of the country has no real influence on this.

Of course, if you've said this to end the conversation about different administrative systems, I'm happy to leave it all here and take it up some other time. Your blog, your rules.

JillUser

on Jan 30, 2009

Of course, if you've said this to end the conversation about different administrative systems, I'm happy to leave it all here and take it up some other time.

Please take it up elsewhere. That is not the topic I put forth to discuss on this particular blog. Thanks.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!