Quote:
Originally Posted by MattLarson
No, it's half of the truth, spun in a highly deceptive way. You deliberately ignore the quid pro quo in the relationship between the military and the servicemember.
|
You deliberately ignore the quid pro quo between the military and the taxpayer. The military demands that even low income earners pay into the system so that they can exist. That same low income earner is expected to still pay for their own food, shelter and health care as well as their family's.
If the system was fair, shouldn't the government either:
A) not collect tax from those people, or collect a much lower rate of tax so that they can afford food, shelter and health care
or
B) continue to collect taxes from them but allow them access to the benefits that the military receives: food, shelter, training, health care
In the end, it should be a symbiotic relationship where both sides of the equation are afforded equal benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattLarson
So let's examine the issue as a whole.
First off, you seem to think that servicemembers do not pay taxes. You are completely wrong on this count. Members of the armed forces pay income tax like any other citizen. ( Publication 3 (2006), Armed Forces' Tax Guide) |
They pay taxes. Fine. Do they pay a health care premium? Do they still have access to free food and subsidized shelter? Yep. So why aren't those same benefits available to all working, taxpaying citizens? Why is the military special?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattLarson
Now, let's examine this "subsidy" concept of yours.
sub·si·dy
n. pl. sub·si·dies [list][*]Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.
|
This definition doesn't apply to the military? How so?