Should people pay very high taxes if it means quality education, universal health care, and a low poverty rate?

Asked by: Jo2599
  • Yes they should!

    Quality education benefits EVERYONE, it means better doctors, better lawyers, better everything. The reason our literacy rate is so high is because we have quality education. The reason we can discern fact from fiction and are not being swindled constantly is because we have quality education. Universal health care is also a big one. The government's job is to keep it's people safe and healthy, and if that means that we all need to pay a little bit more, I'm absolutely fine with that. Just because a child's parents don't care for it responsibly doesn't mean that you should refuse the child health care. There are many poor people who are not to blame for their current lack of money and by refusing them education and health care you are essentially refusing them a better life, and condemning them to a life of misery, where they're probably going to end up raped and gutted in an alleyway. Around 25% of homeless suffer from serious mental illness, and if we can address that mental illness, that means less crazy people on the street and that means that that homeless person will be given a better life. (You will be less likely to be raped and gutted on the street by a crazy person.)
    I know, a substantial amount of people take advantage of welfare, but I believe that welfare is doing more good than bad. Again, there are people who can't be blamed for their current situation(such as homeless struck by mental illness) . A little bit of money can turn a person's life around. I.E. There have been studies proving that giving a homeless person shelter, a shower, food, maybe some clothes, will substantially increase the chance of that person making it in the world, getting a job, buying an apartment., etc.

  • "Low poverty rate" doesn't sound plausible.

    Everyone's paying taxes, everyone's educated, and everyone's healthy, but almost no one is above the poverty line. What you're saying here is "Should people give up financial freedom to be well fed, healthy, educated, and poor, or should they have the freedom to make good choices that result in them being well fed, healthy, educated, and, here's the important part, above the poverty line.

    Generally, I've seen over the past 2 decades that the government screws up everything it touches. I generally would not want money to be put into that category any further.

  • Subsidizing poverty does not lower the poverty rate.

    Giving more government support to those living in poverty does not lower the poverty rate. It temporarily increases their quality of life, but it rarely does anything to address the root of the problem. If you subsidize poverty at a level so that those below the poverty rate have a quality of life that is equal to those who are not living below the poverty rate, you have not eliminated poverty, but rather have eliminated the incentive that those living in poverty have to try to better their situation.

  • Yes, but no.

    Essentially you're arguing, "if the government can make everything better, shouldn't you be willing to pay high taxes?" Of course I'm willing but all the evidence points to the fact that the government is incapable of completing the most basic goals much less complex goals like educating everyone or reducing poverty. The Liberal Democrats I meet are perfectly willing to admit that the government is completely incompetent to accomplish any goal but at the same time want to give them more responsibility. I am happy to pay for quality service but there is no evidence that any government is capable of providing it.

    Posted by: 2-D

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.