I have no problem with paying taxes. I do, however, have a problem with the fact that you seem to equate the concepts of “poor” and “pathetic.”
I’m sorry you didn’t get a Pell Grant. I didn’t, either, in spite of the fact that my mom’s annual income was roughly equivalent to a year’s tuition at the school I went to, and my dad barely coughed up anything, in spite of his six-figure household income. (Long story; suffice it to say that acrimoniously divorced parents and financial aid formulas are a really ugly combination.) Luckily, thorough a combination of university endowment-provided grants, student loans, and work, I pulled it off anyway, but it was always quite a scrape.
I think you’re mixing issues here. Financial aid for college is not welfare. In fact, the idea is that if you send poor kids to college, they are less likely to perpetuate the poverty cycle. And anyway, if kids are beneficiaries of public assistance, how is that their fault? One of my best friends was raised largely on public assistance after his no-good alcoholic and abusive father finally died and left his non-English-speaking mother to raise three kids, one of them with profound and multiple disabilities, by herself. How does that make my friend pitiful? Is it somehow his fault that his father was a fuckup? The sooner we can help people like this get through college, the sooner they will be in good jobs, and the more taxes they will pay on their higher incomes down the line, or at least that’s the idea.
And you know what? Even my friend didn’t get the maximum Pell grant for college, in spite of being from a family of 4 supported solely by SSI Disability and death benefits. That sure as hell doesn’t make him a loser. Some people are just saddled with more obstacles in life than others, and he happens to have been born into an ugly situation like that. Why should he be screwed? Why shouldn’t we help him, and others like him, to use their own abilities to get ahead? I think it’s excellent social policy.
We need a 101 in fiscal theory here. Not that I’m very good at it, but I’ll take a shot.
If the XYZ corporation can’t put the call center in India, becuase the penalty in taxes is so high, they have to keep it in the US, they will end up having to pay higher wages. That means your computer, which was $899 with a 15" TFT (assembled in Malaysia), will be put together in Arkansas, with a call center in Nebraska. The XYZ computer you’re not looking at buying, is suddenly gonna cost you $1399. This is the point where you say that it’s way too expensive. You might consider buying the Japanese brand QPR, which is $1199. It seems to be as good and, while not an American corporation, that’s $200 of your hard earned taxed cash. Maybe you can get some fun games for that money.
In which case, XYZ doesn’t get squat. They stop making PC’s alltogether and those people in Nebraska and Arkansas are now out of a job. This leads to them going on welfare (wups! gotta raise them taxes).
But if they make them in Malaysia and callcenter is in India, there’s no profit for us? Right?
Wrong. You now have a computer that you payed $899 for. That’s even $200 less than the Japanese brand. And that money will be spent att your local Wal-Mart. Also, by the success of the XYZ corporation their HQ, in Atlanta, has to hire more accountants, legal beagles. The profit (which they don’t want to pay taxes for) is re-invested in XYZ new line of power tools (Assembled in Madagascar), which in turn leads them to hire more accountants ASF.
Doing it your way, Daffodil5, will only be repeating what happened to the American Car industry in the 70’s, or the Swedish shipbuilding industry in the 80’s.
And my, aren’t there a lot of Japanese cars on the roads nowadays? They sure must be making a shitload of moneys. Wonder where thay pay taxes?
I know what it’s like to be poor, and we made it with ZERO assistance. Some people need help, of course. If others choose to help them voluntarily (via the United Way, etc.) , that’s great, but not a single person should be forced to, including the super-rich. That’s where I part ways with the liberal way of thinking. Less help, more personal responsibility.
I even think welfare should be paid back in installments (interest-free) once the recipient finds employment. I just don’t think supporting it’s citizens from day to day is the responsibility of the government, or of unwilling citizens.
I want to know how the OP had such a hard time understanding an accent in Indian English? Last I heard, that’s a variety of English and is mutually intelligible with all other varieties of English. Well, except for that spoken in Land o’ Lame Rants, obviously.
You never know about mutual intelligibility. I dated a Russian guy who had been speaking English longer that I had; he is a Ph.D. historian and has several years of grad-level teaching in the U.S., and most people understand his English just fine.
Then we stopped on a road trip in Lebanon, Indiana, for lunch. I swear, I had to do some English-to-English interpreting just so he could order his meatloaf. Some people aren’t used to dealing with accents, especially outside urban areas.
I am sorry then; I didnt bother to give you the benefit of doubt.
But I still think you are wrong about living conditions of people employed by these call centers. Maybe your relative was pulling your leg? (I can understand the temptation; I personally would have thrown in scorpions as well… )
An employed person has it good in the city these days. Privitisation has been good. So far.
)