Government, Taxes & Principles

[titushome]

If there is a government program from which I am eligible to benefit, but I am opposed in principle to the government operating such a program, is it ethical for me to receive its benefits?  Is it better for me to get back in the form of government services some of the tax money I've already payed, or is it better for me to refuse on principle to participate?  If I believed that my refusal to participate could contribute even a miniscule amount to the cancellation of the program, I would do it for that reason; but realistically, I know that my participation or refusal will have no real effect.

What do you think?

[bishopnl]

I'm not really convinced it's the place of the government to loan me money for college.  But knowing personally people who's parents paid fewer taxes in the last ten years than I've paid in the last two...and seeing their college completely paid for in the form of grants...I might as well get something for being taken advantage of by the government, even if I have to pay it back.

[rootbeer]

I pay taxes to support government programs, so when I am qualified to benefit, I think it is okay for me to do so, even if I think the whole program is abuse of the taxpayers.

[jdcord]

I agree with the above sentiments.

If it was stolen from you, and you can get even a little of it back, then by all means do so.  By all rights it was and still is your money, so go ahead and take it back.  Go crazy!

[kade]

i have to agrea with the above stated as well.
get back all you can

[jdcord]

*bump*


This was originally posted in the General Discussion forum, but I thought it might get more play here so I moved it.

JD

[bishopnl]

On the subject, I saw an interview with Ron Paul on Meet the Press where Tim Russert accused him of being inconsistent because his district had accepted earmarks for projects Paul didn't think was constitutional, but Paul didn't refuse the money.  Paul said essentially the same thing we've said here. 

[Elfin]

Somewhat related to this subject (though somewhat off subject) here was a ~very~ interesting column in today's paper:


Tales from the trenches
By Steve Bailey
Globe Columnist / January 16, 2008

John O'Leary spent two years in the trenches running the most expensive unemployment insurance system in the nation. That, of course, would be the Massachusetts unemployment insurance system. Here is what he saw:

A Nantucket jewelry store owner who made about $50,000 in the summer of 2004 and then laid herself off and headed to Florida for the winter. In exchange for paying $1,534.40 in unemployment tax, she collected $528 a week for 30 weeks, plus $25 a week for each of her two children - or $17,340 mailed to her while she was "out of work" in the Sunshine State.

The family business - mom, dad, and grown child - that every year reduced the work schedules, and collected a wage subsidy through unemployment insurance. In 2004, the family business paid $5,100 in unemployment insurance premiums; family members collected $17,770 in benefits. The family also collected in 2003 and 2005.

The Brockton school bus driver who made $33,700 and another $7,620 in unemployment benefits - and collected for 24 years. He was outdone only by the interior decorator who collected for 25 years.

The details of each case have been altered to protect the individuals' confidentiality, O'Leary says. But each is an actual claim, in actual dollars, paid out by the state during O'Leary's tour of duty as director of the Division of Unemployment Assistance in the Romney administration.

The unemployment insurance system is one of our most basic safety nets, intended to provide a temporary bridge for those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. But in Massachusetts, a state long dominated by a single political party that too often answers to organized labor, the unemployment insurance system has become something else: one more expensive barrier to job creation and a disincentive to reemployment.

Massachusetts is never going to be a low-cost place to do business. But to an impressive degree, the Commonwealth has made progress in confronting some of the key issues - and attitudes - that earned us our reputation as Taxachusetts. The unemployment insurance system remains one of those outliers that still needs to be fixed.

In a new analysis, O'Leary and Steve Poftak, research director at the Pioneer Institute, the conservative Boston think tank, say Massachusetts leads the nation in unemployment insurance taxes - an average of $637 per employee in 2005, or about twice the national average of $315. They blame the huge disparity on a number of factors, including: generous benefits, massive cross-subsidies for certain industries, the ability of the self-employed to lay themselves off, and what they call "frequent fliers" - those who turn up on the unemployment rolls year after year.

Cutting benefits is always dicey, all the more so with a recession maybe already underway. But there are perverse incentives in the system that can be repaired even without touching the benefits - up to $600 a week per employee, or about 50 percent above the national average. Take the big cross-subsidies.

All insurance has cross-subsidies. But in the unemployment insurance system certain sectors - most notably construction and other seasonal industries - use the program as a regular wage supplement. Under the system, companies are taxed based on their experience of benefits paid to former employees. But the tax maxes out at $1,530 per employee. "At the maximum benefit rate of $600 a week (the highest in the country), it's easy to see the incentive to utilize the system to augment wages in certain seasonal industry," Pioneer says.

Those subsidies exceeded $312 million in 2005, much of that to ongoing businesses that effectively use the system as a wage subsidy to their workforce, Pioneer says. Industries like finance and insurance are picking up the bill.

The Patrick administration is open to using the broken system as a chit in its negotiations with the business community over the issue of closing so-called corporate tax loopholes. A freeze in the unemployment insurance rates, for instance, for a deal on the broader business tax issues. But freezing the rates would not even begin to address the problem.

When it comes to costs, you never want to be on top - where Massachusetts is on unemployment insurance costs. Energy and healthcare, just to name two, represent big, intractable costs for the region. Unemployment insurance, by comparison, is the kind of discrete, fixable problem that can be resolved by reasonable people.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/01/16/tales_from_the_trenches/


~~~~~

And while I think the examples above are the tangible evidence of why the government should not be involved in half the welfare programs they provide, you'd better believe I'd collect if I was in the position of needing it, so long as it's there and my employer has been paying into it for me for whatever plus years I've been working.

[Melody]

This subject has taken on a whole new meaning with the Healthcare reform.

I read that insurance companies have no real competition still and instead can jack up their prices because the government can catch the rest.  I haven't had insurance for years but in a few more will be fined for not having it.  Do I pay the fine, in protest to the whole mess?  Or do I get on the government insurance program?  I'm going to have to pay either way now.  Thus far we just pay our med. bills ourselves, though we don't go to the Dr. much in the first place.

But we do pay taxes, and for things like Titus' example, I feel like basically you are paying in to pay yourself. 

[bishopnl]

This subject has taken on a whole new meaning with the Healthcare reform.

I read that insurance companies have no real competition still and instead can jack up their prices because the government can catch the rest.  I haven't had insurance for years but in a few more will be fined for not having it.  Do I pay the fine, in protest to the whole mess?  Or do I get on the government insurance program?  I'm going to have to pay either way now.  Thus far we just pay our med. bills ourselves, though we don't go to the Dr. much in the first place.

But we do pay taxes, and for things like Titus' example, I feel like basically you are paying in to pay yourself. 

On the fines...I actually have read that rather than send you some sort of fine through the mail, enforcement will consist, at least at first, of withholding income tax refunds from those that don't comply with the federal mandate.  There really isn't a government insurance program (other than Medicaid, but is your family at the income level that would allow you to take advantage of that?), so you'll have to either find a private insurance company or have your income tax refund withheld. 

Btw, a recent report that was released revealed that at least 47 percent of citizens don't pay income taxes (this isn't medicare/medicaid, social security or other income taxes, just the federal income tax).

[Melody]

47% really?!  That is quite a lot of people.  I've now heard that too about taking it from taxes, I also read/heard that it won't be until 2014, but I am having trouble believing anything anymore from the B.O. administration.

We pay, and Nathan doesn't even have a steady job.  He subcontracts out jobs, but he has a separate account and records to pay taxes.  If he should ever be audited, he wants to pass with flying colors.

It all just stinks I tell ya. 

[bishopnl]

Yeah, the federal mandate doesn't kick in until 2014, and the fines at least the first year or two are relatively small.  Although I don't know if they will be taking out the fine from your refund, or just withholding your whole refund.  My parents are in much the same position...my dad owns his own business and does subcontract work with other companies.

Other provisions of the plan kick in right away, and the taxes are going to kick in right away too.  Well...most of them.  The tax on "cadillac" health plans won't kick in til like 2018...the reason being that the Dems don't want to tick off union members, a huge portion of their base.  I'll be affected as early as next year.  The legislation puts a cap on Flex Spending plans...for those unfamiliar, it's a health benefit provided by many employers where you can designate a certain amount of your check to be taken out for the upcoming year to cover health care costs, and that income will not be taxed.  It's usually capped at around 5K...thanks to Obama, the cap has been cut in half.  Heather and I are hopeful that she'll be pregnant again before the end of this year (thanks to the miracle of embryo adoptions  :grin: ), but we won't be able to take out as much $$$ as we would have because of the new health care legislation. 

In addition to the Dems giving the unions some slack (by deferring the taxes on their gold health care plans) they cut the trial lawyers some slack by putting no meaningful tort reform in the legislation.  As far as I know, the legislation also does not end the ridiculous prohibition on buying insurance policies across state lines, which means no real competition.

[The Purple Fuzzy]

I got an email saying Muslims, Amish and some others would be exempt for Religious reasons from having to have insurance.  I wonder if that's true.

[Sis]

I'm converting.

[Melody]

I finally filled out our Census after they sent us a notice and another Census...lol

I cannot really articulate it but it infuriated me.  Not just cause they need to know my business, but because they want my phone number too!  So I left that blank, they're the government, they can figure it out if they want it.

And they better not have a problem with the way I answered race.  I am not white, black, or native American, I'm of Hispanic origin!  I do not understand why that is not counted anymore?  Seems kinda dumb, what are all the full blown Mexicans answering for # 6?  I wrote rather firmly- Hispanic... lol 

I no longer believe that the census is so they can have an accurate state representative quota.  I believe it is soley information to use at their disposal in whatever other way which will be increasingly evil as the day approaches.

We pay taxes, we have birth certificates, we have social security #s, we are registered to vote, we have bank accounts, we live in a residential place, why do they yet need a census?! 

[yosemite]

why do they yet need a census?! 

hmmm... revenue, a job increase report so Obama can brag that he improved employment rates, and like all things if ya deal with something long enuff you can learn to do new things (evil) with them! just a few thoughts.

[Sis]

Why don't all these people who want to ruin our country go to Mexico! Now THERE'S a country that needs fixing. They can go there and kick all the drug lords out and take over the Mexicans. I'd bet they'd like it. 

[bishopnl]

I got an email saying Muslims, Amish and some others would be exempt for Religious reasons from having to have insurance.  I wonder if that's true.

I could be wrong, but I do seem to remember reading about religious exemptions.  However, I doubt this just applies across the board to certain religious groups.  You would probably have to explain to an IRS agent your religious convictions and why they prohibited you from buying health insurance.

I cannot really articulate it but it infuriated me.  Not just cause they need to know my business, but because they want my phone number too!  So I left that blank, they're the government, they can figure it out if they want it.

I was one of the lucky ones who got the American Community Survey...it's also put out by the census bureau, but only sent to 3 million random homes.  It asks questions like "What time do you leave for work in the morning" "How far is your drive to work"  How much is your average electric bill"  "How many acres of property is your home on"  and on and on.  We filled out the census (against my better judgment we answered even the unconstitutional questions)  but I drew the line with this. 

[titushome]

And they better not have a problem with the way I answered race.  I am not white, black, or native American, I'm of Hispanic origin!  I do not understand why that is not counted anymore?  Seems kinda dumb, what are all the full blown Mexicans answering for # 6?  I wrote rather firmly- Hispanic... lol 

I put "human."  What a ridiculous question for them to ask.

[Sis]

*Hindsight*  I should have put Relay!   

[titushome]

Or two-legged? 

[titushome]

Here's a new, real-life scenario related to the topic of this thread.  Some explanation of my situation is required, so bear with me.  I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

In February 2009 I was laid off, and immediately filed to receive unemployment benefits.  (This is one government program I definitely have no qualms about benefiting from, as it's essentially an insurance program that I indirectly pay into.)  At the time I filed, my benefit amount set at a certain level.

During that time my wife and I were in the middle of an international adoption.  Part of adopting internationally involves getting permission from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services to bring into this country a child from another country.  In talking with our adoption agency they informed us that if the USCIS saw on our application that I was collecting unemployment benefits, they would almost certainly deny us.  As we were convinced the Lord had a child waiting for us, we decided to keep the adoption process moving forward, and elected to stop receiving unemployment benefits.

At the time I spoke with a representative of our State's Employment Department, and he assured me that if I stopped receiving benefits at that time I could resume at a later date collecting the same amount.  As I understood it, I was to receive unemployment benefits at the level they determined for a maximum of twelve months - but those twelve months did not have to be consecutive.

Fast-forward eleven months: in January 2010 we brought our new daughter home.  I called the Employment Department to restart my unemployment claim, and everything seemed to come off without a hitch; within a couple of weeks I had my first benefit check, for the same amount as before, in my hand.

Two weeks later, around the anniversary of my being laid off, I received notice from the Employment Department that because it had been a year since I first filed, I would have to file a brand-new claim.  I did so, and was accepted, but was told that my benefit amount was to be about a third of what it was before.  I tried to explain what I had been told before, that my benefit should remain the same until I had collected twelve months' worth, but was told unequivocally that this was not the case, and my new benefit amount was the maximum I was eligible to receive.  Though I was disappointed, of course I opted to receive the new benefit amount.  A little help is better than none, and my family certainly needed the financial assistance.

Fast-forward again to just a couple of days ago (end of April): I was talking to another Employment Department representative about a different issue, and after reviewing my case she, to my surprise, said it appeared to her that my new claim had been filed in error.  That, in fact, a new claim should not have been filed at all, but I should have continued to receive benefits under the previous claim - just as I had expected!

They're still reviewing my case, so this still hasn't been finalized, but last I heard it sounds almost certain that they're going to return me to my previous higher benefit amount.  They are also supposed to retroactively pay the higher amount for all the weeks I've been receiving the lower amount.

Here's where my dilemma, and the connection to this thread's topic, comes in: she said they wouldn't pay me the difference between the higher amount and the lower amount, but instead would just pay me the higher amount - then in a separate transaction ask me to return all the benefits I've received at the lower amount.  But she said that because the error had been theirs, her expectation was that I should not have to pay anything back, and if they ask me to I should simply request to have them waive that requirement.

Would it be unethical of me to keep the money, as it would exceed the amount to which they have determined I am entitled?  Should I return the money if they ask me to, or should I do as their own representative advised, and try to keep it?

[bishopnl]

If they can legally waive the requirement, I would ask them to do it.  As you've stated, it's an insurance program you pay indirectly into, and other taxes that have been taken out of past paychecks are for programs you may never benefit from.  In the long run, I imagine the government will take more from you than you ever will from them. As long as it's not cheating the system or gaining through dishonesty, I don't see any moral conflict.

Just my 2cents.

[SippinTea]

I'm with Bishop on that one.

[Chérie]

We pay taxes, we have birth certificates, we have social security #s, we are registered to vote, we have bank accounts, we live in a residential place, why do they yet need a census?! 

Apparently when they send you the second census, according to my government professor - you HAVE to fill it out. She had gotten one during the last census and didn't realize what the envelope contained thinking it was junk mail, and she started receiving phone calls. It really is quite a hassle. What does the government REALLY need all this information for?
(I was half tempted not to fiill it out, but I didn't really like the idea of someone showing up at my door.. "May I see your papers?" Plus, I figured I would try and save the government a little bit of money because I'm such a good un-American.)

On another note, I read an article or blog (maybe?) on the Washington Post... apparently many American's are offended that Obama chose his race as African American.. Point being that if we are to be truthful on the census we shouldn't choose the race we "identify" with, but the actual race you are biracial or not...