The entire justification for individuals accumulating fantastic sums of wealth is that they're "worth it." To whom might they be worth it, if not their fellow man?
I get what jreyst is saying I think maybe you're missing his point. Let me try stating it this way (either as my own opinion or as reinforcement to his if it matches).
Individual in a capitalist society who accumulate fantastic sums of wealth are "worth it" to the overall society, because in their accumulation of that wealth, they also invested in something or built something or invented something that helped them garner it. That stimulated the economy. It probably provided jobs for a bunch of people involved in producing whatever commodity sold so well. But the bottom line is that the "wealthy" person is contributing to the success of more than just himself. His activity benefits society as a whole.
Presumably, the quick counterpoint to that situation is, "What about the Paris Hilton's of the world?" Or, at least, the super-rich who inherited the wealth of whatever family member grew that massive fortune? How are they contributing to society? Aren't they just a big drain on everything?
To which, I would say, "No. They aren't." As jreyst pointed out, even if all they do is spend Daddy's money as frivolously as they possibly can, it's no skin off anyone other taxpayer's nose. It doesn't hold down anyone else from the "equal opportunity" you cited as your #1 belief. Everyone else still has an equal opportunity to grab for that same brass ring by inventing or producing the next great commodity.
In addition, the super-wealthy in this country...i.e., those who are born with a silver spoon and already have a massive fortune at their disposal because of some prior ancestor's diligence...usually aren't just engaged in spending that fortune. Typically, their super-productive family member who amassed that fortune built a company or a corporation. His children are able to live off the continued interest of all those investments he made. But those investments are still paying dividends...which means that super-wealthy family is still contributing to society. Even the Hilton family still has a huge string of businesses that employs thousands of people. Despite every inane antic of Paris Hilton, her family's legacy is still benefiting society. You can hate or envy her as an individual. But the notion that she and her family aren't "worth it" to society as a whole is a misconception, I think.
If a person sees a homeless guy and brings him soup, bread, and water, I'd think he was a really nice guy.
If instead he walked right by him ignoring him, my opinion of him would be pretty neutral. Not a saint, not a villain.
If while walking by, he was confronted by a stranger who forced him (at gunpoint) to go to the store and buy soup, bread, and water and bring it to the homeless guy, I'd think the guy with the gun was a real ____ (rhymes with stick).
To me, this analogy doesn't fit. But I suspect the root of our disagreement is as follows: I take exception to the idea that it is possible to earn the right to watch a fellow human being starve.
|
1If a person sees a homeless guy and brings him soup, bread, and water, I'd think he was a really nice guy.
2If instead he walked right by him ignoring him, my opinion of him would be pretty neutral. Not a saint, not a villain.
3If while walking by, he was confronted by a stranger who forced him (at gunpoint) to go to the store and buy soup, bread, and water and bring it to the homeless guy, I'd think the guy with the gun was a real ____ (rhymes with stick).
I numbered these to help my thoughts....
1=charity or good, which I agree with and do when I can.
2=totally neutral action, which I agree with also and do sometimes, mostly when I can't or don't want to provide assistance.
3=evil. A government taxing it's citizens to pay for someone is akin to this act, especially when I can be jailed for failure to cough up the dough. Where's my freedom to decide whether or not to help someone and decide if they actually need help or are just lazy?
And yes, I realize that the U.S. does number 3 on that list.....and I pay my taxes to provide for the welfare of people that have 6 children they can't afford and will be raised to continue draining society. Why? So I won't go to jail for tax evasion. I don't have to like it though.
To me, the crux of the conflict is the belief that poor people "intend to live off such handouts rather than have the courage to work their way out of their lot in life." Of course, anyone who has actually been in this situation knows better.
Personally I do not see it as "courageous" to attempt to improve your social lot. I see it more as "willing to invest effort" as it takes a lot of work and dedication to improve your position in society. Certainly some are born more disadvantaged than others (poor parents, drug or alcohol addicted parents, etc). These people have a bad lot in life to start with. Luckily there are various social programs in place (here in America, and presumably elsewhere) to attempt to give these poor unfortunates a helping hand getting out of this hole they found themselves in by way of unfortunate odds of parentage. Some of these people (many?) will be smart enough and dedicated enough to take advantage (in a positive way) of these programs and dig themselves out of this hole, working consistently to better their lot. Others will continually lament their fate and then consign themselves to becoming leeches on society. These second sort deserve no kindness or charity. They have no intention of bettering themselves, only taking from those who have.
I grew up extremely poor. My family collected food stamps, I ate government surplus cheese and rice. There were times when I would have gone hungry without such programs, and yet my family wasn't lazy. They made some bad choices, but they worked A LOT. Poor people who choose to remain poor out of laziness might exist, but I've never met them. Instead, I've met a lot of people born into particularly bad circumstances, treated unfairly, and just plain exploited for the benefit of people thousands of times as wealthy.
I come from a similar background. My family too occasionally collected food-stamps (back before there were these new-fangled credit card deals). I had the shame of going to the store and buying milk and bread with these foodstamps on occasion. This shame told me to never come to this point in life, never depend on the charity of government or others... the shame drove me to better myself, that I would never have to show that I was not capable of providing for myself and my family. Thankfully, in my entire adult life, I have never collected anything from the government (or any charity organization) other than occasionally getting unemployment benefits between jobs. I have been a tax-paying adult now for 24 years, and have collected unemployment benefits perhaps 12 months time over those 24 years of paying taxes. Oh, lol, my original response to this paragraph keyed off of your choice of words "they made some bad choices". For me sometimes that sounds apologetic, like "they weren't smart and picked the wrong option accidentally - they fully intended to make the RIGHT choice, they just made a mistake" when in many cases, its not a mistake. It's people willingly and knowingly making irresponsible decisions hoping it doesn't bite them in the ass later. Unfortunately, too often it does, and then these people end up back at the public teat. Not saying that's the case in your example, but it was in mine. My parents, on occasion, didn't "make a poor decision" as in "gosh they were just too simple to know better" no, they knew what they were doing, they just were being irresponsible and taking chances they shouldn't have.
A tiny sliver of us are so fantastically rich that we could never, ever spend our wealth, while others live on the verge of starvation. Most of us muddle on in between. This is not a new situation. What is new is that the fantastically rich have somehow managed to convince a good chunk of the working class that the real enemy is the extremely poor group at the bottom! "Get mad at that guy over there, who is "leeching" off you with his $200 a month food stamp benefit, but don't pay attention to the guy over there who inherited 18 BILLION dollars, but has never worked a day in his life." Huh. Good trick, that.
I still don't see the animosity towards the guy who inherited 18 BILLION dollars. He's not leeching off of you... he is enjoying life certainly but he's not taking anything away from you or impacting your way of life at all. I do personally hold the guy who is taking from me to feed his laziness much more so than I do the fat-cat who is living large on his inheritance. Hell I hope that one day I inherit money from some unknown relative so I can retire and do nothing but game all day and then travel the world. If I had enough money I'd never work again, just enjoy my new found wealth in splendor and glee. If you have a problem with that I'd say its more a matter of jealousy than anything else. Who knows though, perhaps if you inherited 18 BILLION dollars you'd give it all away to charity and continue working your day-to-day grind of a job hoping not to get fired so you can afford groceries. Not me though, as SOON as that check cleared my butt would be outta this place, never to return. Then all I'd do is game all day every day, between trips to exotic foreign locales. I'd certainly give some to various charities but you can bet your sweet bippy I'd keep the majority for myself and then will whatever was left to my offspring. If that gets you in a tizzy, sorry!
I get what jreyst is saying I think maybe you're missing his point. Let me try stating it this way (either as my own opinion or as reinforcement to his if it matches).
Individual in a capitalist society who accumulate fantastic sums of wealth are "worth it" to the overall society, because in their accumulation of that wealth, they also invested in something or built something or invented something that helped them garner it. That stimulated the economy. It probably provided jobs for a bunch of people involved in producing whatever commodity sold so well. But the bottom line is that the "wealthy" person is contributing to the success of more than just himself. His activity benefits society as a whole.Presumably, the quick counterpoint to that situation is, "What about the Paris Hilton's of the world?" Or, at least, the super-rich who inherited the wealth of whatever family member grew that massive fortune? How are they contributing to society? Aren't they just a big drain on everything?
To which, I would say, "No. They aren't." As jreyst pointed out, even if all they do is spend Daddy's money as frivolously as they possibly can, it's no skin off anyone other taxpayer's nose. It doesn't hold down anyone else from the "equal opportunity" you cited as your #1 belief. Everyone else still has an equal opportunity to grab for that same brass ring by inventing or producing the next great commodity.
In addition, the super-wealthy in this country...i.e., those who are born with a silver spoon and already have a massive fortune at their disposal because of some prior ancestor's diligence...usually aren't just engaged in spending that fortune. Typically, their super-productive family member who amassed that fortune built a company or a corporation. His children are able to live off the continued interest of all those investments he made. But those investments are still paying dividends...which means that super-wealthy family is still contributing to society. Even the Hilton family still has a huge string of businesses that employs thousands of people. Despite every inane antic of Paris Hilton, her family's legacy is still benefiting society. You can hate or envy her as an individual. But the notion that she and her family aren't "worth it" to society as a whole is a misconception, I think..
Ok, Neil, I see your point. I guess my question is: Would all those Hilton employees be any worse off if Paris had to get a job?
Or is the "rich descendant" scenario warranted strictly to protect the property rights of the deceased ancestors? If so, I guess my next question would be: How much less motivation would there be to accumulate wealth if one knew it couldn't be passed on to children?
|
|
To me, this analogy doesn't fit. But I suspect the root of our disagreement is as follows: I take exception to the idea that it is possible to earn the right to watch a fellow human being starve.If a person sees a homeless guy and brings him soup, bread, and water, I'd think he was a really nice guy.
If instead he walked right by him ignoring him, my opinion of him would be pretty neutral. Not a saint, not a villain.
If while walking by, he was confronted by a stranger who forced him (at gunpoint) to go to the store and buy soup, bread, and water and bring it to the homeless guy, I'd think the guy with the gun was a real ____ (rhymes with stick).
If that fellow human being made a decision, and is physically and mentally able to provide himself with food, that brings him to starve then why is that my problem? If you decide to eat to excess all your life weighing in at 350+ lbs and then run into health issues, why should I pay for that? YOU decided to create the problem and it's not my job to fix it.
I would out of charity try to help some people that I thought needed it but I don't want to be forced to help idiots that refuse to help themselves and are mentally and physically able to.|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Since many of us are personalizing this discussion, I won't feel bad about doing the same.
Out of curiousity, am I the only person in this thread who has accepted social assistance?
In my hometown, 50% of people under the age of 30 received some form of social assistance. I don't live there anymore.
If it weren't for social assistance, I would not have been able to finish high school. My first jobs after high school were "student opportunity grants" which were basically government handouts to businesses that paid them to hire someone who would otherwise be on social assistance. Some of these businesses could have afforded to hire an employee without the government handout but were benefitting from corporate welfare. Other businesses were new businesses that needed every chance to survive that first year -- these were the ones that I learnt the most from as they gave me opportunities to really be a part of something and actually help run a new business. I still keep in touch with my former employers from those ones, even twenty-odd years later.
During university, I needed a combination of grants and loans to get me through. Marks and academic performance were never the problem. It took some time, but I don't think I'll ever require welfare again.
I suspect that the difference in opinions on the lazy rich vs. lazy poor is closely connected to the difference in opinions on whether we live in meritocracies.
Agreed. And in my experience, we do not.
Edit: And that really is the crux of the matter for me.
I don't believe that there are that many people who fit the scenario you describe, but I have only my experience to go by, so I may be naive.
I don't know either. But if there's one thing I'd be in favor of with regards to government spending, it would be someone to properly oversee and monitor the abuses of the system to know how much of that's going on. President Clinton's crowning achievement during his administration was "welfare reform." And it was deemed necessary because corruption and abuse existed in the system. I think it still does. One of the reasons I think so is that there are plenty of people (on these boards and elsewhere) from all walks of life and different locations around the country...and yet all of them bring up situations of poor families they know who receive welfare assistance and yet they somehow have the means to also acquire these "luxury" items.
So I think the situation comes up more often than maybe some folks realize. Regardless, without serious government oversight to ascertain the validity of welfare assistance...and given government's known track record for wasteful spending...I doubt we'll ever know just how much.
I agree that the goal in this case is NOT being served. Remember, I'm not an advocate for the system as it currently exists. I said only that no one should be allowed to starve.
I know. And I don't mean to come across in a chastising manner. I agree with many (if not all) of the statements you asserted in what you believe. The unanswered question that follows those assertions, however, becomes how do you ensure those things...or what tools do you apply and whose responsibility is it to try and carry out those noble goals?
That's a fine theoretical model; I just don't think it's happening that way now. Many, many people with health issues, real mental problems, etc. seem to be falling through the cracks.
That's a problem, no doubt. Part of me wonders how much of that might be attributable to the shift we've seen in American society. Let's face it, we've become much more "selfish" over the past few decades. I think the presence of churches and charities has diminished from what it used to be. And the more people turn away from religion or similar tenets of such faiths which call upon people to help one another through charity, the more the problem magnifies. Over the past few decades, we've seen a shift from that kind of thinking to an expectation that its government's responsibility to solve these problems (and all problems, really), rather than the people themselves as moved and guided by their own moral conscience.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Or is the "rich descendant" scenario warranted strictly to protect the property rights of the deceased ancestors? If so, I guess my next question would be: How much less motivation would there be to accumulate wealth if one knew it couldn't be passed on to children?
I wouldn't be able to find the source, but I read somewhere that one bit of advice shared by many millionaires whose children also became successful on their own was DON'T TELL THEM YOU HAVE MONEY!
|
|
Ok, Neil, I see your point. I guess my question is: Would all those Hilton employees be any worse off if Paris had to get a job?
Or is the "rich descendant" scenario warranted strictly to protect the property rights of the deceased ancestors? If so, I guess my next question would be: How much less motivation would there be to accumulate wealth if one knew it couldn't be passed on to children?
So now you are advocating the right to steal a person's wealth when they die instead of allowing them to grant that wealth, whether they earned it through hard work and diligence or lucky fortunes, to their families?
If so count me out! If that was the case you would see a society that was totally based on providing the aging with expensive momentary pleasures so that they could spend their money before they go, or an aging society that stuffed mattresses with cash to give to their families in secret to help them out.Take away a person's right to provide their family with some stability when they pass? Crazy talk.
If that fellow human being made a decision, and is physically and mentally able to provide himself with food, that brings him to starve then why is that my problem? If you decide to eat to excess all your life weighing in at 350+ lbs and then run into health issues, why should I pay for that? YOU decided to create the problem and it's not my job to fix it.
I would out of charity try to help some people that I thought needed it but I don't want to be forced to help idiots that refuse to help themselves and are mentally and physically able to.
The overweight analogy doesn't quite work: Fixing starvation is (comparatively) quick inexpensive. Even so, I'd say it's your "problem" because of compassion. Empathy. Basic human decency, even.
Since many of us are personalizing this discussion, I won't feel bad about doing the same.
Out of curiousity, am I the only person in this thread who has accepted social assistance?
In my hometown, 50% of people under the age of 30 received some form of social assistance. I don't live there anymore.
If it weren't for social assistance, I would not have been able to finish high school. My first jobs after high school were "student opportunity grants" which were basically government handouts to businesses that paid them to hire someone who would otherwise be on social assistance. Some of these businesses could have afforded to hire an employee without the government handout but were benefitting from corporate welfare. Other businesses were new businesses that needed every chance to survive that first year -- these were the ones that I learnt the most from as they gave me opportunities to really be a part of something and actually help run a new business. I still keep in touch with my former employers from those ones, even twenty-odd years later.
During university, I needed a combination of grants and loans to get me through. Marks and academic performance were never the problem. It took some time, but I don't think I'll ever require welfare again.
I've certainly received public assistance to get through college- PELL and TAP. I had to charge my last semester when it ran out, but I was able to pay it off after graduation. My mother briefly considered getting welfare back in the 80s, but decided against it when she quite literally lucked out with a job.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
2. No one, no matter how lazy or inept, should starve to death.This one is the big argument point for me. If you are too lazy to work, you should reap the consequences of your laziness. If that means starving, you starve.
Those who go to the effort of actually doing something, or at least trying, should never have to pick up the slack for those who refuse to do so. Those who cannot - injury, illness, mental incapacity, or other such restrictions - are a different class, but those who willingly choose "I'm lazy and won't work" should get what they have coming to them.
If you make an effort, even if you fail, I'll help you; if you don't even do that much, I have no use for you.
+ 10 billion
Next thing people will be expecting others to bathe and clothe them too, even if they are perfectly capable of doing so themselves.
Ha! That happens NOW. My ex was a CNA- a home health provider. 90% of her clientele were not legitimately disabled people, but people who were too lazy to do their own housework and were so fat that it qualified them for government-sponsored care.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Since many of us are personalizing this discussion, I won't feel bad about doing the same.
Out of curiousity, am I the only person in this thread who has accepted social assistance?
Pell grants, AFAIK my parents never took government support like Foodstamps. My grandmother had to.
Now where I lived? Perry County used to be the second highest producer of Marijuana in the state, right behind Meigs county. ('Meigs county gold' was first bred in OSU, BTW) never tried it (even though I didn't know I was fighting depression, I knew losing control would be a Bad Thing(tm)) but I knew farmers who looked at it as "I can either take a handout, or I can plant one plant in 5 as Mary-J, make 100K and keep my farm. It's breaking the law, but I'm providing for my family."
Kind of hard to fight that logic.
Bugly,
What is the difference between bum-with-gun making the guy by him dinner, and the government taking a chunk of his wallet when he dies?
Ok, Neil, I see your point. I guess my question is: Would all those Hilton employees be any worse off if Paris had to get a job?
Or is the "rich descendant" scenario warranted strictly to protect the property rights of the deceased ancestors? If so, I guess my next question would be: How much less motivation would there be to accumulate wealth if one knew it couldn't be passed on to children?
So now you are advocating the right to steal a person's wealth when they die instead of allowing them to grant that wealth, whether they earned it through hard work and diligence or lucky fortunes, to their families?
If so count me out! If that was the case you would see a society that was totally based on providing the aging with expensive momentary pleasures so that they could spend their money before they go, or an aging society that stuffed mattresses with cash to give to their families in secret to help them out.
Take away a person's right to provide their family with some stability when they pass? Crazy talk.
I take exception to the word "steal," because that's begging the question, but as a practical matter, I do see your point.
Bugly,
What is the difference between bum-with-gun making the guy by him dinner, and the government taking a chunk of his wallet when he dies?
One is taxation? I wonder: Do you liken all taxation to armed robbery? If so, how do you propose we pay for things like the military?
Ok, Neil, I see your point. I guess my question is: Would all those Hilton employees be any worse off if Paris had to get a job?
Or is the "rich descendant" scenario warranted strictly to protect the property rights of the deceased ancestors? If so, I guess my next question would be: How much less motivation would there be to accumulate wealth if one knew it couldn't be passed on to children?
Ok, don't take this the wrong way, because I certainly don't want to appear to favor Paris Hilton or her personality, but do you know that as a direct result of her becoming involved in the perfume company Parlux, Parlux enjoyed a 47% increase in sales of all Parlux products (see wiki article)? Don't you think that as a result of her fame and name that Parlux employees, people from all ends of the economical spectrum, from the guy sweeping the floors and cleaning the toilets at Parlux HQ, to the admin assistants booking meetings and managing executive schedules, to the vice presidents and presidents, all enjoyed an increase in their quality of life? Many were merely glad to still have a job, some perhaps got raises, others got nice Christmas bonuses... all as a result of increased sales due to her involvement? Didn't she then, in a way, contribute to society? I'm just saying that its very difficult to imagine a scenario where an extremely wealthy individual doesn't contribute, in any way, to society. Hell, the increased tax rates alone help ensure that they do more than their fair share. I know I personally pay a much larger percentage of my income in taxes than I did 10 years ago due to being in a higher tax bracket. If you ask me that sucks too. I personally agree with the whole flat-tax concept. Tax everyone 10% (with special lower-end exemptions). If I earn 20k per year, I pay 2k in taxes. If I earn 200k per year I pay 20k in taxes. If I earn 2 BILLION per year, I pay <a crap-load> per year in taxes. Why isn't that fair again? Why should I pay 8% when I earn a little, then pay 40% when I earn a lot? Doesn't that discourage success?
Wow, comparing the lazy rich person to the poor lazy person is one of the worst way to make a point ever. Unless the rich guy just keeps his billions in a mattress and doesn't invest or spend it, he is still paying taxes and or paying others. The truly lazy and unwilling to contribute poor person should get NOTHING from me. And I have met people exactly like that.
My favorite example was from a person who was moved from welfare, to workfare. She was living in public housing, her entire life was paid by the government and when they said she would have to sweep the hallways and stairwells of the place she was living in for free, she was incredulous. She didn't think it was right that she was required to DO ANYTHING AT ALL to get her checks and free house, not even cleaning up after herself.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
So now you are advocating the right to steal a person's wealth when they die instead of allowing them to grant that wealth, whether they earned it through hard work and diligence or lucky fortunes, to their families?
If so count me out! If that was the case you would see a society that was totally based on providing the aging with expensive momentary pleasures so that they could spend their money before they go, or an aging society that stuffed mattresses with cash to give to their families in secret to help them out.
Take away a person's right to provide their family with some stability when they pass? Crazy talk.
Explain to me how 'estate tax' works. I would think that any inheritance you get should be taxable as income. If you wanted to reduce your taxes on it, you could but it in a retirement savings plan so that you withdraw it when you are older at a reduced tax rate. Is that how it works?
What is new is that the fantastically rich have somehow managed to convince a good chunk of the working class that the real enemy is the extremely poor group at the bottom! "Get mad at that guy over there, who is "leeching" off you with his $200 a month food stamp benefit, but don't pay attention to the guy over there who inherited 18 BILLION dollars, but has never worked a day in his life." Huh. Good trick, that.
Not that complicated.
Person 1: Lazy, doesn't work. At the end of the day, demands a share of the wages you earned.
Person 2: Lazy, doesn't work. At the end of the day, pays you a share of the wages you earned. (Obviously the employer keeps some of the "share" in order to make profit)
Note: Even the laziest rich person still has to pay some people who work/serve for them.
Ok, Neil, I see your point. I guess my question is: Would all those Hilton employees be any worse off if Paris had to get a job?
Firstly, Paris has had jobs. Modeling, "acting", and spokesperson. So claiming she hasn't work at all is not intellectually honest. Is her work worth the money she has earned doing it? Not in my opinion, but some believe it is.
Secondly, the employees might actually be worse if she got a "job". Why? Well, historically rich families tend to give jobs to family members within the organizations they control. This means that Paris would take a job away from someone else but not actually get more money from the family, thus less diverse spending into society. Also she might not do that job as well as person who has to "earn" the position and it may negatively effect the business and thus hurt more employees. So, yes there may be negative consequences to having her "work".
Ok, Neil, I see your point. I guess my question is: Would all those Hilton employees be any worse off if Paris had to get a job?
Why do you feel she needs to work? You resent her life of ease, granted by the hard work of her family? Their fortune is well-earned. If she wants to spend her life adding nothing to society, that's her call. She should be reviled and belittled for it, in my opinion, rather than hoisted up as a role-model for others to emulate. But that doesn't justify raiding the family assets because they have more than they need...aren't giving it away to others who are still struggling...etc.
...is the "rich descendant" scenario warranted strictly to protect the property rights of the deceased ancestors? If so, I guess my next question would be: How much less motivation would there be to accumulate wealth if one knew it couldn't be passed on to children?
What do we all want in life? Security? Peace of mind? For ourselves and our family...even after we're dead and gone. A feeling that we've left those closest to us better off as a result of our efforts. To penalize that would be wrong, I think. As someone else suggested earlier, it fosters bad behavior to take that wealth away from them at the time of their death. Either, they spend it fast and furiously on lives of even less meaning in their old age. Or, they try and hide it, squirrel it away, put it in tax shelters and so on to ensure as much it still reaches their family.
In addition, what we're really talking about is the estate tax here. And, again, given that the government has already taxed your income once while you were alive, why on earth would you agree to letting them tax it again just because you died? It's a nest-egg to passed on to the rest of your (presumably growing) family.
My own two step-brothers were raised in a perpetual welfare household their entire lives. The mother had one child after another with different fathers and worked the system by never marrying and continually collecting government aid. It appalled me how they lived but the brothers were my step-brothers and I enjoyed spending time with them, even if their home was a vile mess infested with drunk bikers molesting the daughters. Yes, it was a mess. Now, my one step-brother is in prison for a criminal sexual assault charge on a minor and the other is a continual domestic abuser. Lovely folks, sorry for the momentary thread-jack but it was at least tangentially related to the subject lol
Since many of us are personalizing this discussion, I won't feel bad about doing the same.
Out of curiousity, am I the only person in this thread who has accepted social assistance?
In my hometown, 50% of people under the age of 30 received some form of social assistance. I don't live there anymore.
If it weren't for social assistance, I would not have been able to finish high school. My first jobs after high school were "student opportunity grants" which were basically government handouts to businesses that paid them to hire someone who would otherwise be on social assistance. Some of these businesses could have afforded to hire an employee without the government handout but were benefitting from corporate welfare. Other businesses were new businesses that needed every chance to survive that first year -- these were the ones that I learnt the most from as they gave me opportunities to really be a part of something and actually help run a new business. I still keep in touch with my former employers from those ones, even twenty-odd years later.
During university, I needed a combination of grants and loans to get me through. Marks and academic performance were never the problem. It took some time, but I don't think I'll ever require welfare again.
Watching my parents struggle to feed me is what inspired me to go to college. I paid my own way, graduated Magna Cum Laude (from a public university, but still), and got a job in the tech sector (Intel). Between 1997 and 2002, I went from making 35k to 55k. In 2002 I was laid off (sorry; Redeployed). I was unemployed for a full year, during which I received unemployment, and then later food stamps, in order to support my children. I got a job again in 2003, and have been employed since. While I certainly never intend to go back on public assistance, my children and I would have been screwed if it hadn't been available.
The point is, you can play by the rules, do the right things, and still end up needing help: I was there. There's nothing like living it to make you re-examine your assumptions about those on public assistance.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Wow, comparing the lazy rich person to the poor lazy person is one of the worst way to make a point ever. Unless the rich guy just keeps his billions in a mattress and doesn't invest or spend it, he is still paying taxes and or paying others. The truly lazy and unwilling to contribute poor person should get NOTHING from me. And I have met people exactly like that.
My favorite example was from a person who was moved from welfare, to workfare. She was living in public housing, her entire life was paid by the government and when they said she would have to sweep the hallways and stairwells of the place she was living in for free, she was incredulous. She didn't think it was right that she was required to DO ANYTHING AT ALL to get her checks and free house, not even cleaning up after herself.
Yes, some people are idiots. Would you agree that some people can use social assistance to survive during difficult times and make themselves more able to take care of themselves?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Ok, Neil, I see your point. I guess my question is: Would all those Hilton employees be any worse off if Paris had to get a job?Why do you feel she needs to work? You resent her life of ease, granted by the hard work of her family? Their fortune is well-earned. If she wants to spend her life adding nothing to society, that's her call. She should be reviled and belittled for it, in my opinion, rather than hoisted up as a role-model for others to emulate. But that doesn't justify raiding the family assets because they have more than they need...aren't giving it away to others who are still struggling...etc.
Am I the only one who enjoys Paris Hilton (if the volume is turned down)?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One is taxation? I wonder: Do you liken all taxation to armed robbery? If so, how do you propose we pay for things like the military?Bugly,
What is the difference between bum-with-gun making the guy by him dinner, and the government taking a chunk of his wallet when he dies?
Not that far from it, actually.
I'm a flat taxer or use taxer when it comes to policy. Estate taxes are taxing money that has already been taxed, just because the person died. Like anything, it's created an institution to get around it (estate planning) but it also has detriments.
Hypothetical:
We'll assume Paizo's assets are enough to trigger an estate tax. James has to come up with oodles of cash to pay for Paizo's assets to be his. James can't. Paizo gets chopped up into little bitty pieces to pay the estate tax, James, Cosmo et. al have to find new jobs (Sean's safe, he gets hired as the new Mr. Clean spokesman) We all lose a wonderful company that makes wonderful products.
I'm disappointed in Mitch McConnel in that he didn't pull the trigger, and make the entire 2K+ health care bill be read, aloud, on the senate floor. You can't get much more transparent than that, and it would keep pork down and bills simpler. Have you heard the crap in the defense bill?
Heck, the estate tax goes poof January 1, for a year. There are people who are holding on to life with the weakest of grips, so they will die next year. But even then, the congress has stated they plan to pass a retroactive tax for people who die in 2010.
Out of curiousity, am I the only person in this thread who has accepted social assistance?....If it weren't for social assistance, I would not have been able to finish high school....During university, I needed a combination of grants and loans to get me through. Marks and academic performance were never the problem. It took some time, but I don't think I'll ever require welfare again.
My parents made a lot of sacrifices to provide for me and my brother during our early years of school. They didn't require social assistance from the government (as far as I know). But they did have a lot of people who assisted them in small charitable ways, because they knew our family's situation. It wasn't like they gave us money or food or clothing. But they did give my parents discounts on such things or help them find ways to stretch their dollars (though my mom was really good at that on her own).
Regardless, college was out of the question for us unless we took a job immediately after high school and saved for it (which my brother did) or won enough scholarships to cover it (which I did). Even then, when I got to college, I knew the scholarships wouldn't last long enough to cover everything. Eventually, I took an on-campus job and even joined the co-op program to alternate my remaining semesters so I could work and save enough to pay for it all.
Basically, nothing easy. We worked for it. There are plenty of opportunities and doors in America for people willing to find and use them.
I absolutely agree Tarren. We need a safety net, but there must be limits. I love workfare myself, it provides incentive to improve and prevents a lot of system abuse. Free labor to local governments is a definite benefit to society as a whole and if you are not willing to do the bare minum, then you should get cut off. This in no way should apply to those who can't work, just those who choose not to.
And I too enjoy a little silent Paris!
Not that far from it, actually.I'm a flat taxer or use taxer when it comes to policy. Estate taxes are taxing money that has already been taxed, just because the person died. Like anything, it's created an institution to get around it (estate planning) but it also has detriments.
*SNIP*
I don't see how *any* tax doesn't still meet your apparent criteria for armed robbery. Even a flat tax would only change the amount of taxation, not it's compulsory nature.
What is a use tax, and how would it be used to fund the military? It almost sounds like we'd have to charge the countries with which we go to war. ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
A use tax is essentially a national sales tax. So for example, with a use tax, I make 1K a week, I take home 1K a week. I go buy gas, the Use tax is in the cost of the gas. I go out to eat, the use tax is there too. If I don't want to pay the taxes, I don't use it.
And prior to the passage of the national income tax, the revenue raised by the government was through tarrifs and duties. Essentially they protected our borders and merchant interests by taxing things crossing the border and using those merchant interests.
States have most always had (with some exceptions) income taxes, or providing services. Deleware doesn't (didn't?) have an income tax, because their laws are so business friendly. The revenue the state makes from incorporation fees covers the need for an income tax. Businesses incorporate their, because the laws there are more beneficial to them.
On the flip side, California's in trouble not just because the businesses are leaving, but the businesses are leaving because of the cost of doing business. DHL moved from Dayton to the Carolinas not because of the lack of quality workers in Dayton, but because the cost of staying in Ohio, with Ohio taxes, were greater than moving and setting up in the Carolinas.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Am I the only one who enjoys Paris Hilton (if the volume is turned down)?Ok, Neil, I see your point. I guess my question is: Would all those Hilton employees be any worse off if Paris had to get a job?Why do you feel she needs to work? You resent her life of ease, granted by the hard work of her family? Their fortune is well-earned. If she wants to spend her life adding nothing to society, that's her call. She should be reviled and belittled for it, in my opinion, rather than hoisted up as a role-model for others to emulate. But that doesn't justify raiding the family assets because they have more than they need...aren't giving it away to others who are still struggling...etc.
She doesn't look 'real' to me. Strange as it sounds.
The overweight analogy doesn't quite work: Fixing starvation is (comparatively) quick inexpensive. Even so, I'd say it's your "problem" because of compassion. Empathy. Basic human decency, even.
If that fellow human being made a decision, and is physically and mentally able to provide himself with food, that brings him to starve then why is that my problem? If you decide to eat to excess all your life weighing in at 350+ lbs and then run into health issues, why should I pay for that? YOU decided to create the problem and it's not my job to fix it.
I would out of charity try to help some people that I thought needed it but I don't want to be forced to help idiots that refuse to help themselves and are mentally and physically able to.
So you are saying that it is "basic human decency" to save people from their own bad decisions?
That right there is the crux of the matter. Those of us who are disagreeing with you feel that people are entitled to get the consequences of their actions, while you seem to be espousing that we should go to the effort to save them from themselves.
I'm honestly very afraid of people with that mentality. What's to stop them from thinking "Orthos is a conservative/a Christian/a gamer/a something something/etc. and that's self-destructive, we need to save him from himself"? It's one of the main reasons I'm so leery of government programs - a good number of them seem intended for the very purpose of bailing people out (can I use that term? :P ) from their own screw-ups, regardless of any effort on their part, which leads to the issues discussed earlier in the thread.
(This is of course assuming I'm not misinterpreting your quoted statement.)
So you are saying that it is "basic human decency" to save people from their own bad decisions?That right there is the crux of the matter. Those of us who are disagreeing with you feel that people are entitled to get the consequences of their actions, while you seem to be espousing that we should go to the effort to save them from themselves.
I'm honestly very afraid of people with that mentality. What's to stop them from thinking "Orthos is a conservative/a Christian/a gamer/a something something/etc. and that's self-destructive, we need to save him from himself"? It's one of the main reasons I'm so leery of government programs - a good number of them seem intended for the very purpose of bailing people out (can I use that term? :P ) from their own screw-ups, regardless of any effort on their part, which leads to the issues discussed earlier in the thread.
Wow, that's quite a jump. One's religious/hobby/political affiliation decisions aren't something that one can be "saved" from.
I'm saying that in a society as wealthy as ours, no one should be allowed to starve. I reject the idea that most poor people are lazy or inferior.* For those that are, yes, we should offer to save them to the extent that they don't starve to death. You seem to be saying that preventing starvation is a violation of people's right to starve! It isn't like I'm suggesting force-feeding here... ;P
* Once again, up comes meritocracy. I don't agree that poor people are poor because they're lazy or inferior, which seems to be a necessary premise to get to where many people seem to be.
I'm a flat taxer or use taxer when it comes to policy.
As attractive as a flat tax may initially sound, I just can't get behind that. Taking 2K from someone making 20K under a 10% flat tax is much more taxing (heh, I pun) than taking $20K from the guy making $200K. That 10% of income the 20K guy is losing hurts him a lot more in trying to provide for his family than the 200K guy who still has 180K to look after his.
That problem then gets magnified if you continue applying "use" taxes on top of commodities they're both buying. Because, if you're going to keep taxing the 20K guy who has to stretch 18K to feed his family, it's a double-whammy on him.
Lastly, I don't think a flat tax is realistic because you'll never find the exact rate (or percentage) that lets the low-income guy meet his needs while also gaining enough taxes from the high-income people to pay for everything the government legitimately needs to cover in terms of the national budget.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
So you are saying that it is "basic human decency" to save people from their own bad decisions? That right there is the crux of the matter. Those of us who are disagreeing with you feel that people are entitled to get the consequences of their actions, while you seem to be espousing that we should go to the effort to save them from themselves.
I agree that people should reap the consequences of their decisions. Some people start their lives disadvantaged through no fault of their own decision-making and as such I see no harm in aiding such people in their efforts to better themselves. I do not have one iota of sympathy for those individuals who do not seek to improve their lot in life to a point where they are not a net drain on society. People who participate in a society should seek, at least, to not be a drain on society, or ideally, be a net additive to society, somehow contributing into the overall advancement of that society they are participating in. Being a drain should be strongly discouraged, and certainly not rewarded, as is often done by paying these sorts to enjoy their irresponsible decisions.
|
|
Not that far from it, actually.I'm a flat taxer or use taxer when it comes to policy. Estate taxes are taxing money that has already been taxed, just because the person died. Like anything, it's created an institution to get around it (estate planning) but it also has detriments.
*SNIP*
I don't see how *any* tax doesn't still meet your apparent criteria for armed robbery. Even a flat tax would only change the amount of taxation, not it's compulsory nature.
What is a use tax, and how would it be used to fund the military? It almost sounds like we'd have to charge the countries with which we go to war. ;-)
I don't see a tax for schools and road maintainance and protecting our country as something bad in most cases. I do see a tax that allows the majority of the people who benefit from it to be lazy unproductive people when they should and could be working as a theft of my money. Some people also think of school taxes this way when they private school or don't have children and in those cases I agree with that assessment.
No free rides.
I don't see a tax for schools and road maintainance and protecting our country as something bad in most cases. I do see a tax that allows the majority of the people who benefit from it to be lazy unproductive people when they should and could be working as a theft of my money. Some people also think of school taxes this way when they private school or don't have children and in those cases I agree with that assessment.No free rides.
Wow. I think it's to everyone's benefit to have a well-educated populace, so I can't get on board with the idea that funding a public school system is theft from those who don't have children.
To each his own, I guess.
Wow, that's quite a jump. One's religious/hobby/political affiliation decisions aren't something that one can be "saved" from.
I agree, but I've seen it claimed. Was the best example I could have come up with on short notice.
I'm saying that in a society as wealthy as ours, no one should be allowed to starve. I reject the idea that most poor people are lazy or inferior.* For those that are, yes, we should offer to save them to the extent that they don't starve to death.
Aaaaah! I see now where the confusion's coming from.
In your original post, when you mentioned laziness it seemed like they had already made that decision.
I firmly agree that the offer should be made. I'm a little pickier about when the rewards come in - I prefer to wait until after some effort has been put forward, rather than give the award at the beginning and hope that it incites further effort for more reward. But if the offer is made and no effort - through laziness, not incapability - is ever made, then no I don't think they should get anything for their lack of attempt.
You seem to be saying that preventing starvation is a violation of people's right to starve! It isn't like I'm suggesting force-feeding here... ;P
And in a way, I am. If a person refuses the offer of aid in exchange for effort (even a failed effort is still an effort, as I've said before I'm willing to reward someone who at least tries) then they've made their choice, as incomprehensible as it may be to me, that they would rather starve than work. In that sense, yeah I think they have a right to make such a decision (again, as much as it may boggle my mind) and once they've made it that's their choice to make.
* Once again, up comes meritocracy. I don't agree that poor people are poor because they're lazy or inferior, which seems to be a necessary premise to get to where many people seem to be.
I will agree that the grand majority are not. Most are unlucky, or are poorly skilled in an area that requires greater skill to advance, or are among the Exception Group: disabled, mentally or physically, or otherwise incapable of doing the kind of work they need. These people, as I've stated before, deserve pity and aid not scorn.
But there are those who have made the decision to be poor and live off others through laziness, and the grand majority of those are fully capable mentally and (usually) physically of working in some manner for their living and simply choose not to. These are the people my ire is directed at.
I think that clears it up a bit?
So you are saying that it is "basic human decency" to save people from their own bad decisions? That right there is the crux of the matter. Those of us who are disagreeing with you feel that people are entitled to get the consequences of their actions, while you seem to be espousing that we should go to the effort to save them from themselves.I agree that people should reap the consequences of their decisions. Some people start their lives disadvantaged through no fault of their own decision-making and as such I see no harm in aiding such people in their efforts to better themselves.
As stated in my post above, I think that is the point where the line is drawn, yes. It is the effort - even an unsuccessful one is still an attempt, which I respect - that makes the difference.
|
|
Wow, that's quite a jump. One's religious/hobby/political affiliation decisions aren't something that one can be "saved" from.
I'm saying that in a society as wealthy as ours, no one should be allowed to starve. I reject the idea that most poor people are lazy or inferior.* For those that are, yes, we should offer to save them to the extent that they don't starve to death. You seem to be saying that preventing starvation is a violation of people's right to starve! It isn't like I'm suggesting force-feeding here... ;P
* Once again, up comes meritocracy. I don't agree that poor people are poor because they're lazy or inferior, which seems to be a necessary premise to get to where many people seem to be.
You may reject the idea but that only means you are blinding yourself to the other side of this issue. I have known a bunch of people who have "played" the system of welfare and food stamps. I also have known a few that needed the system to help them and had legit reasons for it. The truly needy ones in my experiences are a small percentage compared to the ones 'working' the system.
I don't want to eliminate the systems in place to help people, just eliminate the lazy, system working people from those systems so that those who are really needy can get what they need.In a society as wealthy as ours no one who needs real help should be allowed to starve. The lazy people should either starve or decide not to be lazy anymore and work for their food.
But there are those who have made the decision to be poor and live off others through laziness, and the grand majority of those are fully capable mentally and (usually) physically of working in some manner for their living and simply choose not to. These are the people my ire is directed at.
I think that clears it up a bit?
It does. I do agree that distinguishing between those who *do* choose not to work and those who are trying can be difficult or impossible in practice.
I'm saying that in a society as wealthy as ours, no one should be allowed to starve.
"allowed to starve"
I think the key point is that virtually no one will starve if you stop freaking babying them. Its like a child who refuses to eat green beans. If all you ever serve is green beans, guess what? That kid is not going to continue to choose not to eat green beans and starve to death.
By the same token the free-loader will not starve to death if you stop feeding him. He'll figure out a way to get food. Maybe that involves crime, maybe not. If it does, eventually he'll be caught and end up in the prison system where your (and unfortunately my) tax dollars can feed and shelter him. Ideally I'd also rather see such people (non-violent offenders) forced to do community service instead of sheltering and feeding them, but for some reason that's inhumane.
Alternatively, he may decide that the other perks that come along with mandatory prison time are undesirable and as such he'll figure out that he needs to get a job and start feeding himself. Just handing him a cheeseburger so he can spend his $2.00 on a beer is, in my humble opinion, kind of stupid. Why enable that behavior? Let him reap what he sows.
If a person refuses to provide for themselves when they are capable of doing so, I see no problem in not aiding them. Forcing me to do so (by implementing some form of societal tax to pay for the food for these folks) is stealing from me. If you want to pay for their food while they buy alcohol or drugs, more power to you. Just don't make me do the same.
I reject the idea that most poor people are lazy or inferior.* For those that are, yes, we should offer to save them to the extent that they don't starve to death. You seem to be saying that preventing starvation is a violation of people's right to starve! It isn't like I'm suggesting force-feeding here... ;P
* Once again, up comes meritocracy. I don't agree that poor people are poor because they're lazy or inferior, which seems to be a necessary premise to get to where many people seem to be.
I never said poor people are lazy or inferior. I'm merely suggesting that those who choose to be a drain on society (aka-leeches) by choosing not to better themselves, should not be rewarded by paying for their necessities. If you don't pay for their food they will have to do so themselves, taking money away from their drug/alcohol habits and possibly helping cure them of their addiction. By paying for their food you are helping them remain addicts. To me that seems like a bad idea.
It does. I do agree that distinguishing between those who *do* choose not to work and those who are trying can be difficult or impossible in practice.But there are those who have made the decision to be poor and live off others through laziness, and the grand majority of those are fully capable mentally and (usually) physically of working in some manner for their living and simply choose not to. These are the people my ire is directed at.
I think that clears it up a bit?
I know what you mean, there.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Wow, that's quite a jump. One's religious/hobby/political affiliation decisions aren't something that one can be "saved" from.
There's one study that shows some people disagree with you.
Scary, isn't it?
Wow, that's quite a jump. One's religious/hobby/political affiliation decisions aren't something that one can be "saved" from.
The example Orthos used doesn't really negate his point, though. He's pointing out that cedeing that kind of control to the government to determine who's made a bad decision...and to then expend government resources to "save them from themselves"...is a decision best left out of the hands of politicians.
I'm saying that in a society as wealthy as ours, no one should be allowed to starve.
Completely agree with you. The question is how will we ensure they're not allowed to starve?
I reject the idea that most poor people are lazy or inferior....
That's completely debatable unless someone expends the effort to determine the actual "need" of those claiming social assistance.
For those that are, yes, we should offer to save them to the extent that they don't starve to death.
I notice you said "offer" this time. Does that mean it's voluntary for taxpayers to contribute to such a cause? Because if it's not, there's no offer involved. The government is taking the money to do so, regardless of need or the "acceptance" of their "offer" to help the poor.
You seem to be saying that preventing starvation is a violation of people's right to starve! It isn't like I'm suggesting force-feeding here... ;P
LOL. I get what you're saying...and why you might perceive it that way. But I don't think anything we've discussed so far cuts to that extreme.
Is it morally acceptable to allow people to starve when there's food available to feed them and money available to ensure it gets delivered to them? No, it isn't. We all have a moral obligation to help our fellow man.
But is it the government's responsibility to enforce moral obligations and feed the entire population? No. The entire poor population? Define "poor." Someone has to quantify it to make sure such assistance is warranted (i.e., they're truly incapable of providing for themselves). As long as that happens, I'm okay with social assistance. And I'd even recognize that sometimes temporary assistance (i.e., unemployment benefits) is warranted as someone tries to transition to a new job. But you've got to have tighter oversight to ensure that kind of system doesn't get abused or incent the wrong behavior out of those applying for assistance. And, unfortunately, there's a lot of corruption and waste in the current welfare system.
Wow, that's quite a jump. One's religious/hobby/political affiliation decisions aren't something that one can be "saved" from.
There's one study that shows some people disagree with you.
Scary, isn't it?
Haven't seen that exact one before (seriously, where do these people get the funds for all these "surveys"?) but that's the kind of thing I was thinking about, yeah.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Wow, that's quite a jump. One's religious/hobby/political affiliation decisions aren't something that one can be "saved" from.The example Orthos used doesn't really negate his point, though. He's pointing out that cedeing that kind of control to the government to determine who's made a bad decision...and to then expend government resources to "save them from themselves"...is a decision best left out of the hands of politicians.
It seems like a lot of people draw a distinction though between the Worthy Poor (those who can't work for whatever reason we find to be acceptable or are using the social ladder appropriately to move upward and just need some assistance) and the Unworthy Poor (those who can't work because they're lazy). Which leads me to wonder, how do we separate out the two groups from each other, particularly using the incapable tools of the government. What is the cost of separating out the two groups? Is it greater than the cost of just treating them all the same and allowing the Unworthy Poor to reap the benefits of the system to reach as many of the Worthy Poor as possible?
A lot of this discussion turns on the question of what people "should" do. They "should" work if they are able. They "should" have incentives to work. I agree that this is what "should" happen, but that and a quarter will get you a phone call. I prefer to ask "what can we do to get people to behave as we think they 'should' (assuming, of course, we can even agree on what they 'should' do)." I definitely think economic rewards are a tool in the toolbox to get people to work, but I don't think they are the only tool, or that such tool can't be employed to better effect. In particular, I believe the ranks of the Worthy Poor vastly outweigh the ranks of the Unworthy Poor, and that it's a good allocation of resources to help the former even if it means the later get a free ride. In a perfect world, we would be able to differentiate the two groups easily and perfectly. Sadly, we don't live in that world, so I think we need to ask how we make the world we live in better. Railing against the strawman of the Unworthy Poor is an emotional exercise in self-righteousness, I can't deny that it feels good, but I also can't help but doubt that it is the most effective strategy to deal with the problems that stem from poverty.