I have a job; I have for the past two years. I only work weekends during the school year due to my busy workload, but I still earn $5,000 a year, and out of my paychecks, most of it goes towards social security and Medicare that I probably won't receive in my lifetime. I understand your frustration, but you need to man up. Seriously.
You pay $500 dollars a year in taxes, I pay $20,000. That means I pay about 40 times what you pay in a year. I use the same services as you do, yet still end up paying grossly more. And don't tell me to "man up." If somebody stuck a gun to your head and took your wallet, would you complain about it or would you "man up" and blame yourself for having money in your wallet?
Have you lived under a rock since September? It's impossible to get loans, whether they're for school, houses, or a car. Over ten states have canceled their student loan programs, and others are increasing the interest rates on the loans by roughly 14% each year.
Go to community college, and if you do well, transfer to a university for the last two years. I remember I took some summer classes at my local community college because boarding in College Station over the summer would have been too expensive. Tuition was about 800 dollars a semester. You'd be hard pressed to find somebody who if they really dedicate themselves to an education can't free up $1,600 dollars a year to go to school. For the rest of the two years, some schools are only about $13,000 dollars a year. You can probably make about $7,500 thousand a year by doing some student worker programs, and I'm sure that even with the current loan crisis, you could find a $11,000 dollar loan. As I said, if you dedicate yourself to it, you CAN go to school, its just a choice between and education and much you sacrifice to go there or not.
90% of the people shouldn't be able to go to college?
Apparently high schools are no longer teaching kids basic reading comprehension... What I implied was that its unreasonable to expect that you're worthy of a merit-based scholarship when your not even in the top 10% of your graduating class. These scholarships are based on competition, and if you can't compete your way into the top 10% then the money should be given to those who can.
Once again, improve your reading comprehension. I'm saying that its not fair that the government is charging people different amounts for equal benefits and protection. There, I cut out all of the big words this time, so maybe you'll finally get what i'm trying to say. Read it over twice to fully grasp what i'm saying before posting another response to an argument I didn't even make.
*sighs* First of all, telling me to improve my reading comprehension is somewhat pointless, as I understand perfectly what you keep saying. Second, my vocabulary consists of several sesquipedalian neologisms, and expelling insults based on a handful of observations by only yourself is short-sighted and quite frankly, stupid. If you understood MY argument, you would get that I'm saying that because they have so much less money, it is fair that they should have to pay less for the same services. Like I said in one of my previous posts, the amount you have to contribute is proportional to the amount you make. That's why taxes are paid in percentage amounts. You can't have a family who makes 30,000 dollars a year paying 20,000 a year for national services. By that point, it is considered oppression, and in the Constitution, it is stated that it is the duty of American citizens to overthrow oppressive governments. It is not fair for everyone to pay the same for services like armed forces protection and the road system, because some will be able to pay it annually and maybe, say, not have to get their 10,000 dollar pie at a London hotel, while others will have to sell their house to make the annual payment. Making everybody pay the same amount for services provided by the government is infeasible, short-sighted, and incredibly stupid.
Look at the government budget some time. About 50% of all of the tax payer's money goes to social security, welfare, and other socialist institutions. If the government only provided the services which a government should provide such as a justice system, highways, and a military, it would probably be able to charge a much flatter rate. "Because they can afford it" isn't a solid argument. Money is money, no matter who is holding it. Just because somebody has more of it doesn't qualify the government to take more of it. You berate me for questioning your reading comprehension yet you still can not grasp my argument! I'm not saying the government should charge people who don't make money more. I'm saying that they should charge the people who do make money LESS. You are presenting a counter argument to a point I didn't even try to make! I'm tired of restating my points over and over again.
You don't get what I'm saying. I wasn't berating you, I was saying that you shouldn't be so condescending. There isn't a problem with charging them less, if you mean a slightly lower percentage, because the hard amount will still be much higher, but at the same time, the lower class should have to pay less if below a certain income line. Also, institutions like welfare and social security are necessary. It's not just the rich that are paying for welfare, it's the middle class mostly. The argument that welfare is a socialist institution isn't solid either; because it's similar to government charity. It's not just the rich that pay for welfare. Social security is giving money to people that are too old to work, yet still need to support themselves. How is that a bad thing? Elements of socialism are needed for a capitalist economy to survive. Also, what "other socialist institutions" are you talking about? ------------ Not every point I present is a counter-point to something you've previously said. I think we're on different pages here.
