Heather..looking for your opinion
Find a Conversation
|Fri, 10-08-2004 - 6:09pm|
My husband and I both went to college on ROTC scholarships. We served on active duty after graduating (as commissioned officers) and then both left the active service when we decided it was time to have a family. Because of our military experience, we both were hired into management positions, both with good salaries. I quit my job to stay home after our first child was born. My husband works hard, and has been recognized with promotions and pay increases. Until last year, we both served in the reserves. I resigned my commission after DH was activated. I have a home based business that provides our "fun money".
We live a very good life. Our house is not huge, but it is nice. We live in a safe neighborhood. We both drive safe, reliable cars (DH bought a new truck when he got back from Afghanistan). We always have clean clothes that are in good condition (I mostly shop at Walmart, JCPenney, and Sears). Because we budget, we are able to take vacations, eat out, and do other fun things. Also because we budget, we are able to save a portion of each paycheck for the future. We regularly donate to charities that are important to us, many of them faith-based, right here in our community. We send our two sons to a private Christian preschool. Our daughter receives a host of services from the Early Intervention agency, which our insurance does cover, but it would be at no cost to us if it did not. So that is my life in a nutshell.
My question to you is... how much should the government take out of my life to help those less fortunate? This is not meant to sound snotty; we are not in the top 1% of the country in terms of wealth, but we do fall into one of the higher tax brackets that would probably be targeted for tax increases. I get the impression that people think that the ones who will have their taxes increased are the ones who are insanely rich because they inherited a ton of money and have never worked a day in their lives. Since we don't fall into that category, I'm just wondering if that makes any difference when you talk about who should shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for welfare and programs like it.
Anyone is welcome to throw their two cents in. Heather's post just really got me thinking.