So Many discussions on the OT board seem to degenerate into arguments about one of two things: politics or gun control.

In the interests of getting the arguments from both sides I thought I would start this one rather than have other VERY unrelated threads unwittingly hijacked by these issues.

I put forward the proposition that social equality through government benefits and welfare packages leads to a better society.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

Please keep it clean ladies and gentlemen.

I for one am interested in what Dakkites from accross the political spectrum have to say but I really don't want personal attacks and below the belt comments.

My first thought is that lowering the wealth of the more wealthy to give to the less wealthy (usually the lowest on the ladder) leads to a lower balance. This style of redistribution does not lead to much improved conditions for the lowest incomes.

The welfare and government programs rarely, almost never lead to social equality, nor financial equality.

What I would prefer is more education about opputunities for the lower income levels, and of course more oppurtunities overall.

From the speech you linked to, in the 6 minutes area, this man recognizes that one of the key points for overall health is community involvement and and trust between people.

It seems to me if more people who are higher on the ladder would use some of thier time and energy to work with one person on the lowest areas of the ladder, and vise verse, mentoring, etc, we could improve the lives of the lowest among us.

Here's the thing about it, wealthy people on average tend to be very busy and literally do not have enough time for this to occur to them. People on the lower part tend to not reach out to the wealthier for mentoring, be it from lack of trust, or just a general feeling like it would never actually happen.

This is where I go back to the education of people about oppurtunities available to them.

I learned this lesson many years ago, and put it to good use. You can literally just find someone who is doing fairly well (much better than you anyways), introduce yourself, and get some first hand advice on how to improve your lot in life. Preferrably someone who is part of an industry you really dream of being part of. Quite often they will actually help you out, because they recognize and respect the fact you are ambitious and trying to improve yourself, rather than looking for a hand out.

Social Welfare programs have thier place, and I am not saying they are useless, but it seems more social mixing of the wealth levels would go a long way to improving trust between people, and overall improvement of the least wealthy among us. Giving poorer people more money to keep living the same life they live seperately from others does not help fix the critical issues in our society.

I dunno, it is later and I should be in bed. sorry for the rambling.

I for one am glad of the system here in the UK (its broken but its better than nothing right?), With out it I would be dead...at lest twice. So I have alot of respect for the NHS and those that work in its limiting system. Then there is the underclass, Chaves, nasty little buggers they are. They are like cockroaches. Tell one of them to get lost when they are hurlling abuse at you and fithteen of them jump you. Then there is the education system, most of the time education is lacking here. I swer most of the kids today just grunt and grone like sullen orks.
...Oh dear god, I just used the "the kids today"...Damn I'm starting to get old!...

I think that, at least in the US, "Social welfare" programs do much much more harm than good. Sure, it is a means of ensuring that citizens are able to feed themselves while they are out of work, which is good....

However, how many people in the States are rabid drug users and on welfare? How many of them are morbidly obese, and have the nerve to complain that the food isnt enough to feed their family. I am of the opinion that Welfare needs massive reforms in the states, and that starts with "employing" those on welfare... these would be truly menial jobs that NO ONE would want to do, and unless they do these state run jobs, no welfare check. There should obviously be mandatory drug testing for those wishing to go on welfare. As a soldier in the US Army, why should I be tested for drugs in order to have a job in the first place, and these lazy sods can do as much crack or whatever they want, and never get tested for usage?

I also agree with Shadowseer, in that training for those who do not otherwise get the opportunity to succeed is important. I am not suggesting a Communist Russia system, where everyone gets tested, and you get training in a job that reflects well on your test results. I would be more in favor of a system that would give those on unemployment or welfare a list of "fields" or jobs that are short numbered. If they need special training, provide links to someone who can do that training on a grant or loan program (and I would support the hiring company paying for part of that training). It'd be more like, "You were an accountant, and that field has took a nose dive? Well, we have plenty of openings in the Logging industry, care to work a chainsaw?"


But overall, I hate the current system, because it fully supports laziness, and poor habits, but does not get the right sort of help that people really need.. and that is real work.

Ribon Fox wrote:I for one am glad of the system here in the UK (its broken but its better than nothing right?), With out it I would be dead...at lest twice. So I have alot of respect for the NHS and those that work in its limiting system. Then there is the underclass, Chaves, nasty little buggers they are. They are like cockroaches. Tell one of them to get lost when they are hurlling abuse at you and fithteen of them jump you. Then there is the education system, most of the time education is lacking here. I swer most of the kids today just grunt and grone like sullen orks.
...Oh dear god, I just used the "the kids today"...Damn I'm starting to get old!...

The 'system' is what has caused the UK to be in such a mess because of slowed social punters thieving money from the government when they arent sick in fact.

Hi. I'm a Tory.

Firstly, let me say that I support the idea of social welfare. Part of living in a civilised society is accepting that some people, through no fault of their own, will find themselves out of work or unable to work. Should we leave these people to their fates in the name of so-called 'freedom'? No. Freedom to starve to death is not freedom at all.

However, not all welfare recipients are deserving of our collective compassion - there are those that CAN work, but refuse to. Bearing that in mind, welfare should be difficult to avail oneself of, and the cash component of it should be miniscule, for example, one should receive money to travel to job interviews, upon receipt of proof by the authorities. It should NOT be a lifestyle choice, it should be a subsistence allowance. That said, MORE support should be given to those who are successful in finding work, lavish support, even. I think we should give people a month's wage (to be repaid in small installments) as soon as they start a job, so that they have money to travel (amongst other things), and so that they can enjoy the benefits of employment immediately. It would be a great incentive, I think.

My personal opinion is that there should be a guaranteed minimum standard of living for all citizens that can can be withdrawn by agencies for repeated anti social actions.

Should a person demonstrate a complete lack of interest in society (through work or social action) then this minimum should be withdrawn by increments. There MUST be some way of avoiding moral hazard within the social system.

Speaking of moral hazard I truly believe that the upper reaches of society have fallen collectively to the moral hazard of greed for it's own sake. There are too few people who control each other's remuneration that is leading to an accumulation of wealth in too few hands.
This strangles an economy because too little actual wealth filters through to those of lower income.
The greater the gap between rich and poor; the greater the problems that will be faced by government. Comapny boards seem quite happy with laying off 1000 menial workers and at the same time handing the equivalent of half or more of the saving in bonuses and share options to thier executives. This places strain on an economy in two ways: it reduces liquidity in the economy and it places a weight of care upon the state.
I am not saying that government should intervene in remuneration decisions but that shareholders should have a vote on remuneration. There are too many executives who sit on each others remuneration boards.

I like Shadowseer's idea of mentoring.

Sonophos wrote:So Many discussions on the OT board seem to degenerate into arguments about one of two things: politics or gun control.

In the interests of getting the arguments from both sides I thought I would start this one rather than have other VERY unrelated threads unwittingly hijacked by these issues.

I put forward the proposition that social equality through government benefits and welfare packages leads to a better society.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

Please keep it clean ladies and gentlemen.

I for one am interested in what Dakkites from accross the political spectrum have to say but I really don't want personal attacks and below the belt comments.

From each and his ability to each to his need eh?
That didn't work out so well.

On the positive I need stuff. Give me your money so I can pay for it. If not you're oppressing me, you One Percenter!!!

I'm for:
*Swiss or similar style medical system for all.
*Education through University or advnaced technical school.
*Shutting the border.
*Acquiring Canada, Tahiti, and the Cancun, in that order.
Everything else you're on your own.

That is a rather child-like interpretation of social welfare.

With out da UK stuff my arm would be broken in 3 places.

Albatross wrote:That is a rather child-like interpretation of social welfare.

Totally agree.

We might, however, differ on whose comment we are referring to.

Sonophos wrote:I put forward the proposition that social equality through government benefits and welfare packages leads to a better society.

I disagree.

When you guarantee someone a benefit then they are more likely to use that benefit. If the guaranteed minimum welfare was $1000/month, you won't have people accepting jobs paying less than $1000/mo, thereby leaving jobs unfilled. Instead of simply destroying $1000/mo. by giving it to the recipient, you're also destroying up to $1000/mo. in benefit that could have been provided to someone else.

Further, there are alternatives to government benefits - particularly social charity. Social charities are better at allocating resources because they have an incentive to weed out fraud and misuse (donors might stop giving money) and because they are better able to adapt to changes in circumstances and tailor their services to individuals.

Plus, I would much rather give money voluntarily to support the poor than be forced to do so.

biccat wrote:

When you guarantee someone a benefit then they are more likely to use that benefit. If the guaranteed minimum welfare was $1000/month, you won't have people accepting jobs paying less than $1000/mo, thereby leaving jobs unfilled. Instead of simply destroying $1000/mo. by giving it to the recipient, you're also destroying up to $1000/mo. in benefit that could have been provided to someone else.

Further, there are alternatives to government benefits - particularly social charity. Social charities are better at allocating resources because they have an incentive to weed out fraud and misuse (donors might stop giving money) and because they are better able to adapt to changes in circumstances and tailor their services to individuals.

Plus, I would much rather give money voluntarily to support the poor than be forced to do so.

So by giving benefit to one person I am destroying a benefit for another person? I don't see your logic here. If you are giving benefit then the critreria you lay down chooses who recieves.
That is not how it works. If you are guaranteed a minimum standard equal to $1000 dollars and you are offered a job at $600 you would recieve $400 (or maybe $410 with incentivisation) once you take the job.

There will always be a place for Charities but only a state run benefit system is truly able to provide a system without prejustice (not that I'm saying it does).

Yes fraud can enter into the system but a lot of this can be avoided with a joined up system. Benefits are income and it in the UK it is quite hard to claim and have a proper paying job as our PAYE system picks it up. Besides all monetary systems are open to fraud; false charities are one major form of fraud.

Your final point for me boils down to "I want to choose wich poor people I personally support". Although I am to an extent "forced" through taxation to pay for welfare I see it as a duty; a duty to ALL others to offer help; something that I can not do alone.

Albatross wrote:That is a rather child-like interpretation of social welfare.

Mmm...no.
Its like saying chocolate. No one is against chocolate - what are you a Commie? But then you have to define how much chocolate? Who gets chocolate? Who has to pay for the chocolate? Who decides any of that and whats going to keep them from misallocating, fraud, or using their power to reward friends and punish enemies? (I would)

Now for the advanced class the question should really be: who's gets the chocolate contracts with the government and what is their relationship with the politicians pushing for everyone to have cholocate?

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:That is a rather child-like interpretation of social welfare.

Mmm...no.
Its like saying chocolate. No one is against chocolate - what are you a Commie? But then you have to define how much chocolate? Who gets chocolate? Who has to pay for the chocolate?

Now for the advanced class the question should really be: who's gets the chocolate contracts with the government and what is their relationship with the politicians pushing for everyone to have cholocate?

Everyone should get thier quota of Keynes Co. Chocolate!

Exept Sausage (Weiner) dogs because it is toxic to them.

Sonophos wrote:
So by giving benefit to one person I am destroying a benefit for another person? I don't see your logic here. If you are giving benefit then the critreria you lay down chooses who recieves.
That is not how it works. If you are guaranteed a minimum standard equal to $1000 dollars and you are offered a job at $600 you would recieve $400 (or maybe $410 with incentivisation) once you take the job.

Who pays for the $400 difference? What right do you have to steal that $400 and give it to you? You know thats theft right?
You also know under the above scheme you're just re-incentivzing those evil one percenters. they now have no interest in providing a market based, "fair" salary.

Sonophos wrote:So by giving benefit to one person I am destroying a benefit for another person? I don't see your logic here.

No, by giving someone a benefit you're incentivising them not to act in other ways that might be beneficial. See Bastiat.

Sonophos wrote:If you are giving benefit then the critreria you lay down chooses who recieves.

Yes, and governments are notoriously poor at determining these criteria. Because there's no reason for them to be selective. In fact, there are lots of reasons for them to be over-inclusive.

Sonophos wrote:That is not how it works. If you are guaranteed a minimum standard equal to $1000 dollars and you are offered a job at $600 you would recieve $400 (or maybe $410 with incentivisation) once you take the job.

Well, you didn't specify that. But that would be a superior system. It is still open to abuse and inferior to private charity.

Sonophos wrote:There will always be a place for Charities but only a state run benefit system is truly able to provide a system without prejustice (not that I'm saying it does).

I disagree. A state run system will be no less prejudicial than charities. In fact, it will often be more prejudicial because private charities can discriminate. If green monkeys only make up X% of the population, then a non-discriminatory government program would only have X% of its clients be green monkeys. But if a private charity only services green monkeys then more than Y% of green monkeys will get help.

Plus, government-run charities dry up money that would normally go to private charities, for a number of reasons.

Sonophos wrote:Yes fraud can enter into the system but a lot of this can be avoided with a joined up system. Benefits are income and it in the UK it is quite hard to claim and have a proper paying job as our PAYE system picks it up. Besides all monetary systems are open to fraud; false charities are one major form of fraud.

And fraudulent charities will be defunded by donors, or prosecuted for fraud. Unfortunately, there's no such remedy for forced taxation.

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:That is a rather child-like interpretation of social welfare.

Mmm...no.
Its like saying chocolate. No one is against chocolate - what are you a Commie? But then you have to define how much chocolate? Who gets chocolate? Who has to pay for the chocolate?

Now for the advanced class the question should really be: who's gets the chocolate contracts with the government and what is their relationship with the politicians pushing for everyone to have cholocate?

Everyone should get thier quota of Keynes Co. Chocolate!

Exept Sausage (Weiner) dogs because it is toxic to them.

I like Hershey's myself.

Frazzled wrote:

Sonophos wrote:
So by giving benefit to one person I am destroying a benefit for another person? I don't see your logic here. If you are giving benefit then the critreria you lay down chooses who recieves.
That is not how it works. If you are guaranteed a minimum standard equal to $1000 dollars and you are offered a job at $600 you would recieve $400 (or maybe $410 with incentivisation) once you take the job.

Who pays for the $400 difference? What right do you have to steal that $400 and give it to you? You know thats theft right?
You also know under the above scheme you're just re-incentivzing those evil one percenters. they now have no interest in providing a market based, "fair" salary.

So all taxation is theft then Frazz?
As I have said the state Guarantees a minimum standard and minimum wage is part of that system. If all you can get is a job for $600 then you should take that job.
Everybody rich and poor should work to a point where full time work on minimum wage provides the minimum standard so that welfare becomes the safety net that it should be once again.
Given the pressures of globalisation Frazz no I don't think that it is possible for businesses to always pay a salary that is "fair" but that is another argument.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:That is a rather child-like interpretation of social welfare.

Mmm...no.
Its like saying chocolate. No one is against chocolate - what are you a Commie? But then you have to define how much chocolate? Who gets chocolate? Who has to pay for the chocolate?

Now for the advanced class the question should really be: who's gets the chocolate contracts with the government and what is their relationship with the politicians pushing for everyone to have cholocate?

Everyone should get thier quota of Keynes Co. Chocolate!

Exept Sausage (Weiner) dogs because it is toxic to them.

I like Hershey's myself.

That's fine. There isn't actually any chociolate in Hershey's.

Now if you will excuse me gentlemen I am off to sort out some social housing. I am enjoying this discussion and learning from it.

So all taxation is theft then Frazz?
As I have said the state Guarantees a minimum standard and minimum wage is part of that system. If all you can get is a job for $600 then you should take that job.
Everybody rich and poor should work to a point where full time work on minimum wage provides the minimum standard so that welfare becomes the safety net that it should be once again.
Given the pressures of globalisation Frazz no I don't think that it is possible for businesses to always pay a salary that is "fair" but that is another argument.

I noticed you didn't answer any of the questions though. Thats the problem, there's never discussion of the costs.

While I have never needed it I appreciate the fact that we have a line that you will not fall below (although I do hate the ideal of relative poverty - it is or isn't IMO).

That said I do think that we should treat the problems rather than fund the symptoms.

So more money should go to Education rather than Benefits, (hopefully/probably) reducing the need for Benefits and Healthcare in the longer term.

Those that abuse the system should also be treated as serious fraud cases with punishments to match.

Sonophos wrote:
So all taxation is theft then Frazz?
As I have said the state Guarantees a minimum standard and minimum wage is part of that system. If all you can get is a job for $600 then you should take that job.
Everybody rich and poor should work to a point where full time work on minimum wage provides the minimum standard so that welfare becomes the safety net that it should be once again.
Given the pressures of globalisation Frazz no I don't think that it is possible for businesses to always pay a salary that is "fair" but that is another argument.

The problem is, what is the defined value of "minimum standard" ? I know more people on welfare that have more Cable channels than I do, pay for faster internet, have more XBox time logged than I do, etc etc. Why should ANY welfare or social program basically pay for these niceties? I work my tail off to earn what money goes into my bank account. If there were a system that "marked" money given to welfare recipients that basically told companies, if you take this money for cable and other niceties, then you can face penalties/sanctions.. the individual purchasing said niceties (internet and xbox stuff are NOT necessities), should be given first a warning, in writing, and second an actual cut from the system, saying you were given all opportunities to live on the welfare system and you abused it; Perhaps give a probationary reinstatement after a full investigation and whatnot.

Norway.

Kilkrazy wrote:Norway.

I've heard its full or Norwiegans. What does that reference to KK?

Look up their stats, they are pretty impressive.

There are two points:

1. It's the kind of Euro socialist utopia/dystopia posited by the original poster.

2. It could probably never happen in the USA because people have a different personality.

Also, avoid Brunost cheese. It is their equivalent of marmite or natto.

KK what is your personal opinion of Norway's current state?

Kilkrazy wrote:Look up their stats, they are pretty impressive.

There are two points:

1. It's the kind of Euro socialist utopia/dystopia posited by the original poster.

2. It could probably never happen in the USA because people have a different personality.

Also, avoid Brunost cheese. It is their equivalent of marmite or natto.

Doesn't Norway have like 4MM people?
Wait Wiki says 20% of their GDP is from hydrocarbons. Thats a fair example of...nothing then.

On the positive they have killer (as is cool) trolls. I like the Mountain Trolls the best.

Frazzled wrote:

So all taxation is theft then Frazz?
As I have said the state Guarantees a minimum standard and minimum wage is part of that system. If all you can get is a job for $600 then you should take that job.
Everybody rich and poor should work to a point where full time work on minimum wage provides the minimum standard so that welfare becomes the safety net that it should be once again.
Given the pressures of globalisation Frazz no I don't think that it is possible for businesses to always pay a salary that is "fair" but that is another argument.

I noticed you didn't answer any of the questions though. Thats the problem, there's never discussion of the costs.

Just like the discussion of QE costs. Minimum standard social welfare is paid for through taxation of those that exceed the minimum but may have need of it in the future, ie everyone on a wage above national average proportionate with their ability to pay.

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

So all taxation is theft then Frazz?
As I have said the state Guarantees a minimum standard and minimum wage is part of that system. If all you can get is a job for $600 then you should take that job.
Everybody rich and poor should work to a point where full time work on minimum wage provides the minimum standard so that welfare becomes the safety net that it should be once again.
Given the pressures of globalisation Frazz no I don't think that it is possible for businesses to always pay a salary that is "fair" but that is another argument.

I noticed you didn't answer any of the questions though. Thats the problem, there's never discussion of the costs.

Just like the discussion of QE costs. Minimum standard social welfare is paid for through taxation of those that exceed the minimum but may have need of it in the future, ie everyone on a wage above national average proportionate with their ability to pay.

So in other words it really is theft. Awesome.

Several of my friends could possibly be dead without unemployment checks, child support and other social programs. I've seen it work for the better, and I support them for the most part.

Even the poorest person in this country has a higher standard of life than a lot of other people in the world.

It is a psychological fact, that people will create myths about themselves to justify whatever.

Most the time,when they are successful; do not even realize how much other people, society, and the system has contributed to their own situation.

When they are not successful, they emphasize how much other people, society, and the system has contributed to their own situation.

Therefore, we must follow the idea of the Golden Mean. Sadly, what is the best balance between social welfare and taxation is not always clear.

AustonT wrote:KK what is your personal opinion of Norway's current state?

In general very good.

They seem to have achieved a strong democratic constitutional monarchy with a liberal modern society, an excellent economic base in several different sectors, largely carbon neutral power generation, and a high degree of security and income for the whole population.

Their booze tax looks rather high, though.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:That is a rather child-like interpretation of social welfare.

Mmm...no. [

What, this?:

On the positive I need stuff. Give me your money so I can pay for it. If not you're oppressing me, you One Percenter!!

That is an incredibly simplistic and inaccurate interpretation what social welfare is.

This is better, but not by much...:

Its like saying chocolate. No one is against chocolate - what are you a Commie? But then you have to define how much chocolate? Who gets chocolate? Who has to pay for the chocolate? Who decides any of that and whats going to keep them from misallocating, fraud, or using their power to reward friends and punish enemies? (I would)

Now for the advanced class the question should really be: who's gets the chocolate contracts with the government and what is their relationship with the politicians pushing for everyone to have cholocate?

It is simplistic. Its also accurate. It6s not my fault you still haven't addressed the questions related to that, but proponents of welfare never do.

Its easy to be generous with other people's money.

On the other hand I've not seen your exhaustive economic surveys in defense of your claims - whatever they may be.

Yeah, social safety nets are a good idea.

Ultimately, however, it's a balancing act.

Unemployment insurance? Good idea. Unemployment insurance for more than a year? Two years? Eventually you're just prolonging the inevitable; that individual's skills have badly decayed or the market has changed for that skill set and they will have to accept a significantly worse role than what they had before.

sourclams wrote:
Ultimately, however, it's a balancing act.

Exactly.

Frazzled wrote:

Its easy to be generous with other people's money.

This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

The issue isn't spending someone else's money, it is a difference of some people having a stake in humanity and thus a desire to help others, and the stance by some that they could care less what happens to those outside their immediate circle...

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Its easy to be generous with other people's money.

This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

The issue isn't spending someone else's money, it is a difference of some people having a stake in humanity and thus a desire to help others, and the stance by some that they could care less what happens to those outside their immediate circle...

You're right. Now that you you've defined it as saints vs. Genghis Khan you're completely right. I'm shocked anyone would have a different view. Frankly those people are evil and should be sterilized so that the rest of the enlightened can make the world a better place.

Kumbiya m'Lord, kumbiya...

I'm out of this thread. I'll leave it to the happy friends network to agree with each other.

Frazzled wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Its easy to be generous with other people's money.

This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

The issue isn't spending someone else's money, it is a difference of some people having a stake in humanity and thus a desire to help others, and the stance by some that they could care less what happens to those outside their immediate circle...

You're right. Now that you you've defined it as saints vs. Genghis Khan you're completely right. I'm shocked anyone would have a different view. Frankly those people are evil and should be sterilized so that the rest of the enlightened can make the world a better place.

Kumbiya m'Lord, kumbiya...

I'm out of this thread. I'll leave it to the happy friends network to agree with each other.

You mad bro?

Frazzled wrote:It is simplistic. Its also accurate. It6s not my fault you still haven't addressed the questions related to that, but proponents of welfare never do.

Its easy to be generous with other people's money.

That is excellently expressed by your country's military spending. Presumably there are people (drug-dealers, paedophiles, Hispanics etc.) that you don't consider deserving of defence? Ah, but then welfare isn't as effective as a proxy cock, is it?

See, there are things that all nations collectively spend money on - ensuring that people don't starve to death in what is a very wealthy country, is a logical thing to spend public money on. It makes for a stable country.

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

Except you're the exception (i.e. a taxpayer who receives less from the federal government than he pays in). 50% of American society receives more benefit from federal taxes than they pay into the system. Thus they do not have a real incentive to do anything but raise taxes because ultimately somebody else's money gets indirectly funneled to them. Then there's the whole issue of corruption and cronyism, and bureaucratic inefficiency...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:See, there are things that all nations collectively spend money on - ensuring that people don't starve to death in what is a very wealthy country, is a logical thing to spend public money on. It makes for a stable country.

It's virtually impossible to starve to death in the US. Between food stamps, local and national charities, and various food subsidization programs, not to mention the Dollar Menu, food remains incredibly cheap and easily accessed. I am literally within walking distance of at least 3 places that I know of where I could get free meals or groceries without any sort of background or eligibility requirements.

And I'm in Kansas. A solidly Republican, borderline Libertarian, religiously conservative state.

sourclams wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

Except you're the exception (i.e. a taxpayer who receives less from the federal government than he pays in). 50% of American society receives more benefit from federal taxes than they pay into the system. Thus they do not have a real incentive to do anything but raise taxes because ultimately somebody else's money gets indirectly funneled to them. Then there's the whole issue of corruption and cronyism, and bureaucratic inefficiency...

but your thinking of it in very simplistic terms tbh.

Am I annoyed that some lazy sod might game the system to get money for nothing instead of working? Absolutely.

However I am more worried about the fact that if he isn't given the money that the trickle down effect is that his kids don't eat or get adequate medical care. Many children and those not able to care for themselves shouldn't be made to suffer due to the fact that they are born into such situations.

The issue is bigger and more complex then what some want to make it out to be.

@all:

Before (intentionally or otherwise) ratcheting up the intensity of this thread any further, please consider that this is just a toy soldier forum on internet and getting suspended from an internet toy soldier forum for being rude isn't exactly a red badge of courage.

Thanks!

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

If your contribution to welfare is $100/year in taxes, would you give that money to charity if you it were given back to you, or never taken in the first place?

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

If your contribution to welfare is $100/year in taxes, would you give that money to charity if you it were given back to you, or never taken in the first place?

Not sure I totally understand your question.

I spend more then $100 on US based charitable endevours annually currently out of pocket.

I also make various donations of goods/items throughout the year.

In addition, I support as much as I can afford a medical climic active in Hati set up and funded by my step-father, and to which various family memebrs go to annually to volunteer.

I do all of this on a teacher's salary and despite having three kids of my own to feed and support. I still wish I could do more...

CT GAMER wrote:

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

If your contribution to welfare is $100/year in taxes, would you give that money to charity if you it were given back to you, or never taken in the first place?

Not sure I totally understand your question.

If your tax bill was $100 less, would you spend $100 more on charity?

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

If your contribution to welfare is $100/year in taxes, would you give that money to charity if you it were given back to you, or never taken in the first place?

Not sure I totally understand your question.

If your tax bill was $100 less, would you spend $100 more on charity?

Not sure given that i already spend a fair amount (as a percentage of my total post-tax income) on such things, but it might translate...

Sonophos wrote:My personal opinion is that there should be a guaranteed minimum standard of living for all citizens that can can be withdrawn by agencies for repeated anti social actions.
Should a person demonstrate a complete lack of interest in society (through work or social action) then this minimum should be withdrawn by increments. There MUST be some way of avoiding moral hazard within the social system.

I like this idea. And I definitively agree that some form of social welfare is required as a balancing factor in today's economies.

I notice a number of people criticizing it, but I can only imagine it is easy to do so as long as oneself isn't affected by bad fortune. I'm sure it was quite cool living in medieval Europe as well if you happened to be of noble blood.

A discussion to abolish social welfare is but the fruit of the upper classes' efforts to pit the middle and the lower classes against each other, in turn securing their own hold on society. Our nations are not short on money, it just gets spent on the wrong end. When a CEO earns enough that his salary/bonus might pay for 1.000 workers, but his corporation then announces it has to fire said workers because the company is out of money, and then looks to the government for a bail-out with the taxpayer's money, and then still fires the workers ... I'm sorry, I cannot fathom how people can defend this practice. And it gets repeated again and again. Look to the financing sector right now - have the banks learned anything from the previous years? No. The next crash is coming, and again it'll be the small man who will bleed for it.

"Income inequality in OECD countries is at its highest level for the past half century. The average income of the richest 10% of the population is about nine times that of the poorest 10% across the OECD, up from seven times 25 years ago. [...] In both Israel and the United States inequality has increased further from already high levels."

Enjoy your future, I guess. Maybe we will get to see a Shadowrun'esque society with corporate wage slaves arise in a few decades after all. For what it's worth, this will at least remove a few layers of inefficiency from modern day governance, as well as the petty bickering between individual politicians.

Lynata, I *think* what many are proposing, is not an absolute abolishment of various welfare programs, but at the very least significant reforms, that would tighten down on those who are getting but shouldn't.

In the states, there has been some "outrage" over certain federal welfare reform bills that included mandatory drug testing for those seeking aid of government welfare programs. I would think that, if you are living on government dime, however permanently (or not), it is a duty of the recipient to ensure that they maintain themselves in such a manner. This means that they should not be using government funds to procure illegal substances. They should not be morbidly obese, especially if they have children.

If a person on any government subsidy cannot "adequately provide" for their children, well most 1st world countries have programs for that too. I know it sounds ridiculously callous and harsh, but it is true. Children should not be punished for being born to absolutely crap parents.

CT GAMER wrote:Not sure given that i already spend a fair amount (as a percentage of my total post-tax income) on such things, but it might translate...

So it's reasonable to conclude that the money the government spends on charity - on your behalf - it does so generally without your consent, given that you wouldn't spend it that way anyway? Or, it at least gives money to charities that you wouldn't personally support.

CT GAMER wrote:The issue isn't spending someone else's money, it is a difference of some people having a stake in humanity and thus a desire to help others, and the stance by some that they could care less what happens to those outside their immediate circle...

Would you consider yourself as having "a stake in humanity" and a "desire to help others," given that the government is requiring you to contribute to charitable causes that you, personally, would not contribute to on your own, or at least not in the amount the government contributes on your behalf?

Lynata wrote:"Income inequality in OECD countries is at its highest level for the past half century. The average income of the richest 10% of the population is about nine times that of the poorest 10% across the OECD, up from seven times 25 years ago. [...] In both Israel and the United States inequality has increased further from already high levels."

Assume for the moment that the total wealth of the world increased tenfold overnight, but the relative levels of income disparity remained. Would the argument about income disparity change?

biccat wrote:Assume for the moment that the total wealth of the world increased tenfold overnight, but the relative levels of income disparity remained. Would the argument about income disparity change?

Well, nothing really changes except tenfold price inflation.

However I do find the whole 'income disparity' talking point to be ridiculous. The period of least income disparity in recent US history was the Great Depression, when all was equal, just equally terrible. Poor people in the US still retain an affluent lifestyle by global standards, and it's downright regal relative to historical standards.

Where I live, in conservative Republican, borderline libertarian Kansas, there's enough social support and subsidization to boost a 25k/year salary easily into the mid 30ks in terms of lifestyle access, and 30ks to 40k. That's virtually 25%-50% of an individual's pay coming from government dole. How is that not enough?

I agree with the OP.
Social Democracy works.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Lynata, I *think* what many are proposing, is not an absolute abolishment of various welfare programs, but at the very least significant reforms, that would tighten down on those who are getting but shouldn't.

I can get behind that, I'm just somewhat sceptical of certain suggestions that can only result in widening the gap between rich and poor even more.

For example, you mentioned "children should not be punished for being born to crap parents" - yet we know for a fact that a child's origin has a great influence on what kind of education is offered. Not based on intelligence, but simply on social class. This has less to do with social welfare, granted, but it's part of the larger problem.

As for the obese children, I would say that this is actually a result of cheap and unhealthy food, which is purchased because it's cheap and because the parents don't have enough money. Added to that comes the stress factor which does influence both the style of nutrition as well as how a body deals with it. For the current generation, future doesn't look bright. They grow up in a world whose media shows them corrupt politicians, exploitative corporations and a general decline in social equality, and the parents' financial situation does subconsciously affect how much or how well they can deal with their kids as well. It is because of this that I am not even surprised that kids today show no appreciation for society.

biccat wrote:Assume for the moment that the total wealth of the world increased tenfold overnight, but the relative levels of income disparity remained. Would the argument about income disparity change?

The argument will always remain as long as an unnecessary gap is in place. Not just because of the price inflation, but also because the disparity hampers the potential of a nation's population.

Many people with a small income are complaining that they're not getting enough - yet always you could point to countries in Africa and say "they've got it worse!"
And whilst that is certainly true, it doesn't really address the issue at hand. Because it COULD be better. It's just that a minority doesn't want this to happen, as people are generally averse to relinquishing stuff, regardless of whether they truly need it or not. Ironically, this trait increases the further you go up: the people who have the most seem to be the ones who feel least inclined to share.

Anyways, I advocate for improvement, for trying to better society for everyone. If wealth is distributed amongst a greater mass of people, this is bound to result in more people being allowed to benefit from higher education, in turn tapping more potential.

sourclams wrote:Where I live, in conservative Republican, borderline libertarian Kansas, there's enough social support and subsidization to boost a 25k/year salary easily into the mid 30ks in terms of lifestyle access, and 30ks to 40k. That's virtually 25%-50% of an individual's pay coming from government dole. How is that not enough?

I don't have access to the details, so I can only imagine that there's a whole lot of bureaucratic loopholes preventing or lowering this amount, as well as social stigma preventing many people from applying for in the first place. I mean - are you speaking from personal experience or just public perception? Because the statistics clearly point out a problem, unless we assume that it is getting very fashionable to be homeless and hungry lately.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-21-homeless_N.htm
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April05/DataFeature/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/07/health/main4998190.shtml

sourclams wrote:

biccat wrote:Assume for the moment that the total wealth of the world increased tenfold overnight, but the relative levels of income disparity remained. Would the argument about income disparity change?

Well, nothing really changes except tenfold price inflation.

However I do find the whole 'income disparity' talking point to be ridiculous. The period of least income disparity in recent US history was the Great Depression, when all was equal, just equally terrible. Poor people in the US still retain an affluent lifestyle by global standards, and it's downright regal relative to historical standards.

Where I live, in conservative Republican, borderline libertarian Kansas, there's enough social support and subsidization to boost a 25k/year salary easily into the mid 30ks in terms of lifestyle access, and 30ks to 40k. That's virtually 25%-50% of an individual's pay coming from government dole. How is that not enough?

It's never enough, there's always a bloody shirt being waved to be addressed. Until our culture improves, we will never recover from the entitlement mentality.

Hand up, not a hand out.

As a professional livestock economist, you don't know how happy it makes me to see someone actually cite an ERS document as opposed to a bunch of newspaper headline flimflam (although you did then go on to cite newspaper headline flimflam...)

So let's look at the Amber Waves publication.

US households by food security status:

Food secure - 88.8%
Food insecure without hunger - 7.7%
Food insecure with hunger - 3.5%

So topline number, 3.5% of America has been considered food insecure with hunger. But how is hunger defined? 'Adult members who were hungry at times during the year because of their households food insecurity'. Note that this is not starvation. This isn't even prolonged shortage. This is simply an adult whose food access is not guaranteed and has felt hungry within the past year. And I don't say that to be dismissive; hunger is terrible. But people, especially on OWS forums, tend to talk about the massive swathes of starving-to-death Americans, which is a hyperbolic overinflation of the actual circumstance of America's 'hungry'.

Food insecure with or without hunger generally tracks very closely with the poverty line, and food insecure with hunger is typically about 1/3 of that number.

First, this tells me that food insecurity is basically a metric that is determined by poverty level. Poverty level has been fairly constant (as much as a number that bounces between 11% and 15% can be said to be constant) in the US since 1965 so I'm not getting too concerned about food access unless poverty is also taking off. Secondly, the social safety nets at work during 2003 were adequate, especially since 02-03 were recession years. In boom times the food insecurity with hunger rate was between 2-4%, in recessionary times the 'hunger' rate tipped up slightly but still remained contained by 4%. So it's not periods of have or have not, there's simply always a marginal number of chronically impoverished.

So if poverty levels overall are basically rangebound, and if even through the Great Recession poverty levels are unchanged, and if the percentage of individuals with hunger is both below the poverty line and relatively unchanging regardless of financial circumstance, then I'm still completely unconcerned about starving to death within America. I don't think it is the 'fault' of that bottom 3.5% that they remain hungry, but nor do I believe that some grand open-hand policy is going to significantly reduce that rate.

Lynata wrote:

biccat wrote:Assume for the moment that the total wealth of the world increased tenfold overnight, but the relative levels of income disparity remained. Would the argument about income disparity change?

The argument will always remain as long as an unnecessary gap is in place. Not just because of the price inflation, but also because the disparity hampers the potential of a nation's population.

Many people with a small income are complaining that they're not getting enough - yet always you could point to countries in Africa and say "they've got it worse!"

What is enough?

Lynata wrote:Because it COULD be better. It's just that a minority doesn't want this to happen, as people are generally averse to relinquishing stuff, regardless of whether they truly need it or not. Ironically, this trait increases the further you go up: the people who have the most seem to be the ones who feel least inclined to share.

Is it correct then to say that your argument isn't that we should provide welfare for the basic necessities, it's that we should provide enough welfare so everyone has roughly the same amount of stuff? People on welfare deserve big-screen TV's because other people can afford big-screen TV's? (substitute your favorite first world luxury for big-screen TV's if you would prefer)

sourclams wrote:

biccat wrote:Assume for the moment that the total wealth of the world increased tenfold overnight, but the relative levels of income disparity remained. Would the argument about income disparity change?

Well, nothing really changes except tenfold price inflation.

I'm not sure you understand the question. People would have ten times as much "stuff." Instead of living in a (under current measurement) $100,000 house, you would live in a (under current measure) $1 million house. There would be ten times as much food available, acting to drive down prices (although prices might rise due to inflation). In effect, everything today, only ten times more.

From what I understand, the argument from income equality is that everything would be just as bad as it is today, despite everyone being better off, materially.

sourclams wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:This is the classic fallback line, but sort of silly given that as a tax payer it is also MY money.

Except you're the exception (i.e. a taxpayer who receives less from the federal government than he pays in). 50% of American society receives more benefit from federal taxes than they pay into the system. Thus they do not have a real incentive to do anything but raise taxes because ultimately somebody else's money gets indirectly funneled to them. Then there's the whole issue of corruption and cronyism, and bureaucratic inefficiency...

How is it then that in the past 30 years the top few percent of the wealth holding population have got richer and richer at the expense of everyone else?

It can't be due to people voting for higher taxes so they can loll around.

Ah, I see what you mean. Actual ten-fold resource abundance.

Yeah, that's basically my argument against this whole 'income disparity' dialogue in a nutshell. I don't give a damn how much some individual or small group of individuals out there in the world has/controls, provided that I (society in general) still have a higher standard of living than humanity through any meaningful duration of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:How is it then that in the past 30 years the top few percent of the wealth holding population have got richer and richer at the expense of everyone else?

Because it's not zero-sum, and it's not "at the expense of everyone else". Increased globalization and the tech boom has literally created brand new industries with huge opportunity and wealth across the board was created.

This isn't mercantilism; if I want to put a sauna and jacuzzi into my backyard, I don't have to hop the fence with a sword, kill you and take your sauna and jacuzzi. Instead I go create the iPhone, invent an entirely new market that people don't even know there is demand for, which then generates new wealth that I then benefit from. Your standard of living is not suddenly worse just because mine is better.

No, it is because your line of reasoning is incorrect.

The top 2% of the US population's share of the national wealth has increased massively over the past 30 years, while everyone else's share has decreased. The lower down the income scale you are, the less well off relatively you have become.

This situation could not arise through the majority voting themselves huge subsidies at the expense of the wealthy minority.

Kilkrazy wrote:No, it is because your line of reasoning is incorrect.

The top 2% of the US population's share of the national wealth has increased massively over the past 30 years, while everyone else's share has decreased. The lower down the income scale you are, the less well off relatively you have become.

This situation could not arise through the majority voting themselves huge subsidies at the expense of the wealthy minority.

Its not the rich being imapcted. Its the middle class.

Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.

Sonophos wrote:
I put forward the proposition that social equality through government benefits and welfare packages leads to a better society.

Assuming "social welfare" means "social programs" then it is very difficult to argue that they aren't necessary given the reality of the modern nation-state, if only because you will not find a developed, or successfully developing nation-state that does not have them.

Whether or not equality should be their goal, or is something that can be achieved is a different question, and one that's easy to answer with "sort of". Basically you want a system of social programs (police protection, fire protection, education, welfare, etc.) that enables people to operate in a way which they are willing to accept. Practically, this means ensuring that the middle class is fairly large, and that the income gap between it, and the wealthy, is relatively small. The poor don't really matter except in the sense of being subject to higher rates of criminal behavior, and being a political concern for some members of the middle class.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.

Well, there's also the issue of the state, directly and indirectly, subsidizing corporations.

They may create wealth, but they got some help along the way.

Then, of course, there's the issue of "We have more guns than you." which has a way of throwing moral arguments out the door.

sourclams wrote:Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.

No, it's just that you haven't allowed for inflation. A trillion dollars now is worth a great deal less than in 1970.

Your point still falls down.

If the majority voted themselves rewards at the expense of the rich, the rich would not be so rich and the poor would not be so poor.

Kilkrazy wrote:

sourclams wrote:Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.

No, it's just that you haven't allowed for inflation. A trillion dollars now is worth a great deal less than in 1970.

It's true. The (inflation adjusted) GDP in 1970 was a whopping $6 Trillion, which is pretty much the same as today's $14 trillion, and in no way indicates that the US GDP has been growing since then.

I don't actually think we're addressing a key question at the heart of this issue: Is it morally justifiable to 'redistribute' wealth from one group of people to another group of people who do nothing to earn that wealth? Also, is it possible do so with fundamentally limiting the freedom to succeed, by imposing a glass ceiling on the wealth a person is 'allowed' to accumulate? Is this not just the politics of jealousy?

Albatross wrote: Is it morally justifiable to 'redistribute' wealth from one group of people to another group of people who do nothing to earn that wealth?

Yes, especially if you have a flexible understanding of what can be done to earn a thing.

Albatross wrote:
Also, is it possible do so with fundamentally limiting the freedom to succeed, by imposing a glass ceiling on the wealth a person is 'allowed' to accumulate?

Yes, taxation limits the rate of wealth accumulation, not overall accumulation.

Albatross wrote:
Is this not just the politics of jealousy?

That's part of the popular argument, but there's more to it in terms of both that, and policy.

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote: Is it morally justifiable to 'redistribute' wealth from one group of people to another group of people who do nothing to earn that wealth?

Yes, especially if you have a flexible understanding of what can be done to earn a thing.

So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair? Please note that I'm not necessarily talking about welfare for the poor and jobless, more the general idea of redistribution for the purposes of decreasing the wealth gap throughout society. Making the rich less rich in order to make the gap smaller, in other words.

Albatross wrote:
Also, is it possible do so with fundamentally limiting the freedom to succeed, by imposing a glass ceiling on the wealth a person is 'allowed' to accumulate?

Yes, taxation limits the rate of wealth accumulation, not overall accumulation.

But to a punitive degree? Like taxing people earning large amounts at 50%? Is that fair (I assume you think 'fair' is unimportant, as do I, but I mean in the traditional sense)?

Albatross wrote:
Is this not just the politics of jealousy?

That's part of the popular argument, but there's more to it in terms of both that, and policy.

Is there though? I think 'tax the rich more because they can afford it' is class warfare, pure and simple. I also happen to think that it's probably the reason that poor people are, in general, more likely to be in favour of forcible redistribution than millionaires.

sourclams wrote:As a professional livestock economist, you don't know how happy it makes me to see someone actually cite an ERS document as opposed to a bunch of newspaper headline flimflam (although you did then go on to cite newspaper headline flimflam...)

Aye, governmental resources are always* preferrable, of course - but I confess I was lazy and didn't want to spend hours looking for more articles coming from a direct source, so I threw in a few articles from rennomated news for good measure.

*: Well, not always; there have been cases of data falsification just as it happens everywhere, but let's just assume this here is correct - at least as far as the population that actually can be tracked is concerned. Keep in mind that there will be a certain number of undetected cases simply because people fell through the grid / don't want to be found / do not register due to the aforementioned stigma.

biccat wrote:Is it correct then to say that your argument isn't that we should provide welfare for the basic necessities, it's that we should provide enough welfare so everyone has roughly the same amount of stuff? People on welfare deserve big-screen TV's because other people can afford big-screen TV's? (substitute your favorite first world luxury for big-screen TV's if you would prefer)

Hmm, that's two distinct but connected issues.
No, I do not think the stuff you mentioned should be covered by welfare. Yes, I think steps should be taken to aim for more equality in general, above basic necessities.
The latter would be more about education, job security and salaries, however.

sourclams wrote:I'm not sure you understand the question. People would have ten times as much "stuff."

That's not how capitalism works. If you have ten times the resources, the company will simply demand ten times (or more) the price, because it aims for maximum profit to increase shareholder value. There will be competition and a small price war going on between several suppliers, but the prices will still be set higher by default.
Why do you think I'm paying three times as much for food here in Ireland than I did in Germany? It's not because of the distance, it's because of higher salaries.
Products are being sold for whatever you are willing to pay for them, not how much they truly cost.

Albatross wrote:So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair?

In essence, yes, because the alternative would be to see the people on the receiving end may not survive without it, or at the very least will find it a lot harder to get back on their feet. By only giving them the barest minimum, however, we create an incentive for them to become active again - provided their labour is actually wanted.

I'm also putting forth the notion that there is a percentage amongst the "affording" group whose labour is in no relation to the excessive amount of money they receive - at the cost of the majority.

Albatross wrote:I think 'tax the rich more because they can afford it' is class warfare, pure and simple.

Well, 'feth welfare, let them rot' is class warfare, too, just that it gets fanned by those who would be negatively affected if the version you mentioned got out of hand. Social classes exist, which isn't so nice to begin with, but we have to acknowledge that one is inevitably trying to outmaneuver or instrumentalize another.

Lynata wrote:

Albatross wrote:So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair?

In essence, yes, because the alternative would be to see the people on the receiving end may not survive without it, or at the very least will find it a lot harder to get back on their feet. By only giving them the barest minimum, however, we create an incentive for them to become active again - provided their labour is actually wanted.

This isn't true, look at the American Indians. They've received scads of Government assistance since they'd been forced onto reservations, they have high levels of poverty, high levels of obesity, diabetes, poor dental care, chronic heart issues and high levels of alcoholism. All of this is due to not "roughing it" outside of the Reservation, but living in relative ease (with no federal taxes) under governmental assistance from birth. The "incentive" to work is entirely absent, for if they did find a good paying job off of the Reservation, they'll get whacked with taxes.

These people are having their ambition being bred out of them done in an altruistic measure of compassion from big daddy government. These populations are being controlled via bribe instead of the end of a rifle.

Stormrider wrote:

Lynata wrote:

Albatross wrote:So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair?

In essence, yes, because the alternative would be to see the people on the receiving end may not survive without it, or at the very least will find it a lot harder to get back on their feet. By only giving them the barest minimum, however, we create an incentive for them to become active again - provided their labour is actually wanted.

This isn't true, look at the American Indians. They've received scads of Government assistance since they'd been forced onto reservations, they have high levels of poverty, high levels of obesity, diabetes, poor dental care, chronic heart issues and high levels of alcoholism. All of this is due to not "roughing it" outside of the Reservation, but living in relative ease (with no federal taxes) under governmental assistance from birth. The "incentive" to work is entirely absent, for if they did find a good paying job off of the Reservation, they'll get whacked with taxes.

These people are having their ambition being bred out of them done in an altruistic measure of compassion from big daddy government. These populations are being controlled via bribe instead of the end of a rifle.

Agreed, so lets give them back the midwest and desert states to make a new native American nation and relocate all the current squatters...

CT GAMER wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Lynata wrote:

Albatross wrote:So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair?

In essence, yes, because the alternative would be to see the people on the receiving end may not survive without it, or at the very least will find it a lot harder to get back on their feet. By only giving them the barest minimum, however, we create an incentive for them to become active again - provided their labour is actually wanted.

This isn't true, look at the American Indians. They've received scads of Government assistance since they'd been forced onto reservations, they have high levels of poverty, high levels of obesity, diabetes, poor dental care, chronic heart issues and high levels of alcoholism. All of this is due to not "roughing it" outside of the Reservation, but living in relative ease (with no federal taxes) under governmental assistance from birth. The "incentive" to work is entirely absent, for if they did find a good paying job off of the Reservation, they'll get whacked with taxes.

These people are having their ambition being bred out of them done in an altruistic measure of compassion from big daddy government. These populations are being controlled via bribe instead of the end of a rifle.

Agreed, so lets give them back the midwest and desert states to make a new native American nation and relocate all the current squatters...

How about let's not treat them like the livestock out Government does treat them like?

Lynata wrote:

biccat wrote:Is it correct then to say that your argument isn't that we should provide welfare for the basic necessities, it's that we should provide enough welfare so everyone has roughly the same amount of stuff? People on welfare deserve big-screen TV's because other people can afford big-screen TV's? (substitute your favorite first world luxury for big-screen TV's if you would prefer)

Hmm, that's two distinct but connected issues.
No, I do not think the stuff you mentioned should be covered by welfare. Yes, I think steps should be taken to aim for more equality in general, above basic necessities.
The latter would be more about education, job security and salaries, however.

Is there some intrinsic value to education? Or is it simply a western luxury? I would argue that, for the most part, it is a luxury, and to the extent it is not a luxury, people are already willing to pay for the benefits it confers.

Job security and higher pay are simply a means towards acquiring more luxuries, basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, clean water) are remarkably easy to acquire in western nations, even if you're living on government subsidies.

biccat wrote:

Lynata wrote:

biccat wrote:Is it correct then to say that your argument isn't that we should provide welfare for the basic necessities, it's that we should provide enough welfare so everyone has roughly the same amount of stuff? People on welfare deserve big-screen TV's because other people can afford big-screen TV's? (substitute your favorite first world luxury for big-screen TV's if you would prefer)

Hmm, that's two distinct but connected issues.
No, I do not think the stuff you mentioned should be covered by welfare. Yes, I think steps should be taken to aim for more equality in general, above basic necessities.
The latter would be more about education, job security and salaries, however.

Is there some intrinsic value to education? Or is it simply a western luxury? I would argue that, for the most part, it is a luxury, and to the extent it is not a luxury, people are already willing to pay for the benefits it confers.

Job security and higher pay are simply a means towards acquiring more luxuries, basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, clean water) are remarkably easy to acquire in western nations, even if you're living on government subsidies.

I have yet to see an emaciated poor person out and about. Most of them are horribly obese. Now, I cannot speak for everyone, but this is what I have seen.

The problem with a welfare state is that it goes against the basics of survival of the fittest. When government goes beyond protecting people's rights and becomes a provider evolution stops happening. Today it is easier then ever to be an inept fether and have a bunch of fether kids that in less then two decades will repeat the cycle. In the old days if you wanted a family and kids you had to go out and provide and noting being able to provide was shameful. If one is not able to provide for a family one should wait until they are able to before reproducing. The intelligent are being out bred stupid at an astonishing rate. Only a slow believes that at 16 they are fit and able enough to provide for another human being and be responsible enough to guide its development.

Stormrider wrote:This isn't true, look at the American Indians. [...]

This is either because they receive too much money or because they aren't shown what more money could get them, i.e. the "greed factor".
Or maybe they just don't care about money as a leftover from their old days? This is not how our modern world society ticks, however. If you see fancy stuff, you'll want to get it. And if you lack the money ... there's your incentive to go to work. Simples.

biccat wrote:Is there some intrinsic value to education?

What? Of course there is. Only with education can we nurture the intellectual potential of the next generation. Only with education comes the potential to avoid mistakes of the past, to better utilize contemporary opportunities of today's technology, and to help invent tomorrow's thus shaping the future. Only education will move our civilization(s) forward.

We even have studies that suggest things like racism or sexism can be avoided with proper education by dispelling clichés, bias and false images. Not to mention that education is the stepping stone for people to move up in society and get a job that benefits themselves as well as society, ideally utilizing their skills to the fullest regardless of social background. Without education, all you'd get would be a horde of illiterate wage-slaves at the mercy of whoever wants to abuse them for cheap non-complex labour.

Stormrider wrote:Job security and higher pay are simply a means towards acquiring more luxuries, basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, clean water) are remarkably easy to acquire in western nations, even if you're living on government subsidies.

Job security and higher pay are also means to actually boost the economy, as people will feel better about spending their hard-earned cash when they don't have to fear they'll have to move to another city next month to find a new job, or worse, because they can't find a new one at all. Also, social peace. One can hardly complain about class warfare when the gap between said classes grows wider and wider. Yes, the primary purpose of job security and higher pay are the accumulation of luxuries, but it is also a huge psychological factor.
Last but not least: Fairness - though I know that morale isn't a decisive factor in this debate.

Lynata wrote:

biccat wrote:Is there some intrinsic value to education?

What? Of course there is. Only with education can we nurture the intellectual potential of the next generation. Only with education comes the potential to avoid mistakes of the past, to better utilize contemporary opportunities of today's technology, and to help invent tomorrow's thus shaping the future. Only education will move our civilization(s) forward.

That's a lot of platitudes in only two sentences. I'll just make two quick responses:

1) those only apply if the right people get the right kinds of education. There's little value in a janitor getting a masters degree in computer science. And, well I don't have a lot of respect for non-STEM degrees, but I'm sure you would agree that some don't really afford a lot of opportunities for future-shaping.

2) Higher education isn't a necessary precursor for "help[ing] invent tomorrow's [technology]."

Lynata wrote:Not to mention that education is the stepping stone for people to move up in society and get a job that benefits themselves as well as society, ideally utilizing their skills to the fullest regardless of social background.

I disagree. A college education appears to be more of a filtering mechanism than an actual improvement. Particularly given the lack of connection between college coursework and real work.

Lynata wrote:Without education, all you'd get would be a horde of illiterate wage-slaves at the mercy of whoever wants to abuse them for cheap non-complex labour.

False choice.

Lynata wrote:Last but not least: Fairness - though I know that morale isn't a decisive factor in this debate.

Didn't realize you actually quoted me in that last block.

But just to address this last line: fairness is not a universal concept. I guarantee that my definition of the term is different than yours. If we're going to use fairness or morality as a measure, whose concept of fairness or morality do we use?

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:My first thought is that lowering the wealth of the more wealthy to give to the less wealthy (usually the lowest on the ladder) leads to a lower balance. This style of redistribution does not lead to much improved conditions for the lowest incomes.

A brief look into living conditions among the working poor in the laissez faire economies of the early 20th century would tell you otherwise.

What I would prefer is more education about opputunities for the lower income levels, and of course more oppurtunities overall.

I absolutely agree, and think that there should be a focus on getting people up and working. But part of that is recognising that you need some kind of financial base to start from.

Social Welfare programs have thier place, and I am not saying they are useless, but it seems more social mixing of the wealth levels would go a long way to improving trust between people, and overall improvement of the least wealthy among us. Giving poorer people more money to keep living the same life they live seperately from others does not help fix the critical issues in our society.

I agree, though I'd point out how much wealth inequality leads to social stratification. That is, if a guy working an unskilled job earns 1/100 of the income a professional, the two men are very unlikely to meet in social situations, and even less likely to be friends. On the other hand, in a more egalitarian society, where incomes are much closer, so perhaps the professional's income is only triple that of the unskilled labourer, then there is a reasonable chance they might be in the same social circles, and may be friends.

Consider the odds in India of a menial labourer becoming friends with a lawyer, now consider the same in the UK, Australia or the US.

Stormrider wrote:I have yet to see an emaciated poor person out and about. Most of them are horribly obese. Now, I cannot speak for everyone, but this is what I have seen.

Poor and starving aren't the same thing. The reason poor people tend to be overweight (though some are emaciated as well) is becuase crappy food tends to be much cheaper than healthier foods, gyms cost money, and hobbies tend to be more passive, like watching TV becuase it is cheaper than white water rafting. The way food is produced and distributed has changed, and the dynamic of poverty meaning starving no longer is true in first world countries. In modern society being fit and healthy is more of a sign of middle class and up, whereas fat is more of a sign of being poor.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:However, how many people in the States are rabid drug users and on welfare?

According to recent requirements to have drug testing for anyone claiming welfare, not many.

How many of them are morbidly obese, and have the nerve to complain that the food isnt enough to feed their family.

There is a considerable difference between eating enough to get really fat, and eating well. High sugar, high fat crap food is really cheap, but healthy food is not.

I am of the opinion that Welfare needs massive reforms in the states, and that starts with "employing" those on welfare... these would be truly menial jobs that NO ONE would want to do, and unless they do these state run jobs, no welfare check.

Work for welfare is actually a decent idea, and one that's been put into place around the world with good result, but the way you're suggesting it would be a complete disaster. The value of these systems comes from giving people useable skills, and getting them in the habit of getting out and getting to work on time, to do a regular job. Simply dishing out horrible jobs as a punishment will only get people stuck into a routine of suffering through anothe humiliation.

Society isn't at war with the poor.

There should obviously be mandatory drug testing for those wishing to go on welfare. As a soldier in the US Army, why should I be tested for drugs in order to have a job in the first place, and these lazy sods can do as much crack or whatever they want, and never get tested for usage?

Because you get given guns, grenades and planes, and so it's really important that your decision making isn't impaired.

And no, being on welfare doesn't automatically mean you're lazy. Note that the GFC saw several million Americans get put on welfare. Is this because several million people suddenly just got lazy, or is it because of systemic forces having a sudden impact on their lives?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:When you guarantee someone a benefit then they are more likely to use that benefit. If the guaranteed minimum welfare was $1000/month, you won't have people accepting jobs paying less than $1000/mo, thereby leaving jobs unfilled. Instead of simply destroying $1000/mo. by giving it to the recipient, you're also destroying up to $1000/mo. in benefit that could have been provided to someone else.

Which is why, of course, welfare doesn't work like that.

At this point we've basically established that biccat is opposed to a silly welfare system that no-one would ever put in place, and are left with absolutely no idea what he might think of any welfare system actually in operation.

Further, there are alternatives to government benefits - particularly social charity.

We tried this. It was called the industrial revolution. It was a complete disaster and so we stopped doing it.

Social charities are better at allocating resources because they have an incentive to weed out fraud and misuse (donors might stop giving money) and because they are better able to adapt to changes in circumstances and tailor their services to individuals.

Except that welfare operations on administration costs are 5%. Charities are considered high performers if they lose just 40% of their income to administration. So really, that's just complete and utter nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:The problem is, what is the defined value of "minimum standard" ? I know more people on welfare that have more Cable channels than I do, pay for faster internet, have more XBox time logged than I do, etc etc. Why should ANY welfare or social program basically pay for these niceties? I work my tail off to earn what money goes into my bank account. If there were a system that "marked" money given to welfare recipients that basically told companies, if you take this money for cable and other niceties, then you can face penalties/sanctions.. the individual purchasing said niceties (internet and xbox stuff are NOT necessities), should be given first a warning, in writing, and second an actual cut from the system, saying you were given all opportunities to live on the welfare system and you abused it; Perhaps give a probationary reinstatement after a full investigation and whatnot.

But if you look at cable and internet, they really are pretty cheap ways to grind away a whole lot of hours while otherwise doing nothing. It isn't very sensible to demand an unemployed person spend all their time either searching for a job or flagellating themselves for their failures (and even then, who pays for the birch?)

I've got mates who are studying, and between government support and their part time jobs they earn bugger all, yet they've got insane internet and cable. It makes sense because that's what they do with their time - play computer games and watch TV. Meanwhile I've got rubbish internet and no cable, because I don't have the time to get value for money out of those things. When I do have a spare night I'm more likely to go to a movie or out to dinner, things my friends can't afford.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:So in other words it really is theft. Awesome.

This guy heard there was money to be made at this closed community, so he went up and banged on the door. This girl answered and told him sure, he can come in to the community and work the silver mine along with most of the workers. It pays $100 a day, and the guy said that sounded great, but he wondered who paid her to stand on the gate, and who paid to keep the walls of the community maintained? The girl replied that everyone pays a portion of what they earn, and that would include him. Given he was paid an okay wage, he'd be expected to pay $20 each day, and that was the system, all agreed to by the community, and that you had to take accept one part, or none of it. The job paid well, so he took it.

He worked hard all day, and at the end got paid $80. The man got very angry, and said he should get his full $100, and losing $20 of it to pay for the community was theft. Everyone thought him a very stupid man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:It is a psychological fact, that people will create myths about themselves to justify whatever.

Most the time,when they are successful; do not even realize how much other people, society, and the system has contributed to their own situation.

When they are not successful, they emphasize how much other people, society, and the system has contributed to their own situation.

Therefore, we must follow the idea of the Golden Mean. Sadly, what is the best balance between social welfare and taxation is not always clear.

This is an excellent post.

It's a little sad to see how people's positions on publicy policy, especially welfare, come from the personal narratives they invented to believe they're totally awesome, but unfairly put upon. It makes creating effective policy really hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:On the other hand I've not seen your exhaustive economic surveys in defense of your claims - whatever they may be.

It's even easier to pretend that money received and then paid out, all as part of a system that you agreed to be part of by accepting a job, was ever your money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:No, it's just that you haven't allowed for inflation. A trillion dollars now is worth a great deal less than in 1970.

Your point still falls down.

No, really, the US economy has grown in the last forty years. I can't believe you're arguing against that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:I don't actually think we're addressing a key question at the heart of this issue: Is it morally justifiable to 'redistribute' wealth from one group of people to another group of people who do nothing to earn that wealth?

I think it's fundamentally mistaken to consider your paycheque to be something you earned in isolation from society, and the various systems it has put in place.

Also, is it possible do so with fundamentally limiting the freedom to succeed, by imposing a glass ceiling on the wealth a person is 'allowed' to accumulate?

There is no glass ceiling imposed, unless you have a top marginal rate of tax of 100%. While in the past top marginal rates have been extremely high, at present around the world you rarely see top marginal rates above 50%.

Is this not just the politics of jealousy?

It is the politics of jealousy when the argument is 'we should tax the rich, because they have too much'. This is certainly an argument that we see, and see far too often.

But there is another argument, 'we need to provide for these people to help them become self-sustaining members of society, and to pay for that we need to tax people who already have a lot', and that is an entirely different, and much better argument.

sebster wrote:

Work for welfare is actually a decent idea, and one that's been put into place around the world with good result, but the way you're suggesting it would be a complete disaster. The value of these systems comes from giving people useable skills, and getting them in the habit of getting out and getting to work on time, to do a regular job. Simply dishing out horrible jobs as a punishment will only get people stuck into a routine of suffering through anothe humiliation.

Society isn't at war with the poor.

There should obviously be mandatory drug testing for those wishing to go on welfare. As a soldier in the US Army, why should I be tested for drugs in order to have a job in the first place, and these lazy sods can do as much crack or whatever they want, and never get tested for usage?

Because you get given guns, grenades and planes, and so it's really important that your decision making isn't impaired.

I guess I should really explain more of "my" idea for a work for welfare system... I didn't want to because it is directly tied to the US's "immigration problem", which is off topic here. Basically, the govt. would remove those who are in the US illegally, and give those on or wishing to go on welfare the choice: job skills training, with job application assistance, or work the fields (or really any other jobs that are currently being done by predominately illegal folks). In my mind, this would most likely free up the entry level jobs (such as fast food) for those just starting into the workforce (ie, those who are 15-18 and still in high school or whatever it is called in various countries). I may be way out in left field here, but I think it would be fairly safe to assume that most people on welfare would take up the "school" option and try to move up.


And for the drug testing thing, I know that my father, who works for a sporting goods store has gotten drug testing. So really, I should have explained that it's those who do have jobs and are required to get drug testing to keep that job are well in their rights to demand those on welfare get tested as well. I have no idea how many states actually do this, and how well it works, I just know that I have recently seen on the national news, and cable news sources that there have been moves to require drug testing, and many people including the ACLU are getting up in arms about it for some ridiculous reason.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And for the drug testing thing, I know that my father, who works for a sporting goods store has gotten drug testing. So really, I should have explained that it's those who do have jobs and are required to get drug testing to keep that job are well in their rights to demand those on welfare get tested as well. I have no idea how many states actually do this, and how well it works, I just know that I have recently seen on the national news, and cable news sources that there have been moves to require drug testing, and many people including the ACLU are getting up in arms about it for some ridiculous reason.

I mean, its not that ridiculous as you'll find quite a few people that object to private employers drug testing. I know I've only ever been drug tested at entry level positions in warehouses, garages, gyms, etc. I wasn't drug tested for either of my current jobs, one of which has an NDA and numerous regulations on behavior outside the office.

I also know that, when I was managing a gym, my boss made me get applicants drug tested, and I basically just ignored the results. My rule was basically that if you can show up sober to an interview, any drug use you may engage in isn't my problem.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

sourclams wrote:Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.

No, it's just that you haven't allowed for inflation. A trillion dollars now is worth a great deal less than in 1970.

It's true. The (inflation adjusted) GDP in 1970 was a whopping $6 Trillion, which is pretty much the same as today's $14 trillion, and in no way indicates that the US GDP has been growing since then.

That does not answer the point.

If the GDP had grown a thousand, and the poor majority were voting it to themselves, we would not see the change in income distibution that has occurred, which has been to squeeze the money upwards.

Albatross wrote:
So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair? please not that I'm not necessarily talking about welfare for the poor and jobless, more the general idea of redistribution for the purposes of decreasing the wealth gap throughout society. Making the rich less rich in order to make the gap smaller, in other words.

Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how you understand fairness, and what you consider to be important factors in establishing it. Its pretty easy to argue that redistribution isn't, but its also easy to argue that wealth inequality isn't fair.

I think a better question is "Is it necessary?" And that the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is, particular in Western, first world countries if only because people seem to want it. There are ways to change that (basically, oppression), of course, but they're very painful and largely against convention Western values.

Albatross wrote:
But to a punitive degree? Like taxing people earning large amounts at 50%? Is that fair (I assume you think 'fair' is unimportant, as do I, but I mean in the traditional sense)?

Your assumption is correct. At least until fairness enters into the serious part of the public debate, that is lots of people believe roughly the same thing about what is and is not fair (it doesn't happen often regarding taxes). However, it cuts both directions, many a government has faced a revolution because the people considered economic conditions to be unfair (Egypt is a good example).

I think its reasonable to consider punitive taxes to be bad, if their intention is not to be punitive, or behaviorally motivating; which is almost never the case with income taxes.

biccat wrote:
Is there some intrinsic value to education? Or is it simply a western luxury? I would argue that, for the most part, it is a luxury, and to the extent it is not a luxury, people are already willing to pay for the benefits it confers.

Not having intrinsic value, or even having intrinsic value, does not make something a luxury or not a luxury. Of course, nothing has intrinsic value, they simply tend to be valued more highly by more people than other things.

That being said, there are obvious incentives for the state to educate its population.

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:The problem with a welfare state is that it goes against the basics of survival of the fittest.

The basics of survival of the fittest are that it happens, not that it is good thing for it to happen.

It's also a big mistake to think biological evolution takes place on a time frame relevant to the present rate of social evolution.

When government goes beyond protecting people's rights and becomes a provider evolution stops happening. Today it is easier then ever to be an inept fether and have a bunch of fether kids that in less then two decades will repeat the cycle.

Which is why we're having poor families with more and more children in every generation. Except of course, the exact opposite is happening.

In the old days if you wanted a family and kids you had to go out and provide and noting being able to provide was shameful.

Except of course, that's complete and utter nonsense. People got horny and had sex, and ended up with a baby. Thinking otherwise is confusing Leave it to Beaver with history. They dealth with it differently, mosty by providing it with a wildly inadequate diet, minimal education, and then shipping it off to work at 12. Or abandoning it.

The system we have now isn't wonderful, but we got rid of the old system and brought this in because the old system sucked about as hard as could be.

The intelligent are being out bred stupid at an astonishing rate.

Which is why each generation is testing lower and lower in intelligence tests. Except, of course, the exact opposite is happening. Hmmm, it's almost as if human intelligence is a much more complex thing, involving education, upbringing and all kinds of other factors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I guess I should really explain more of "my" idea for a work for welfare system... I didn't want to because it is directly tied to the US's "immigration problem", which is off topic here. Basically, the govt. would remove those who are in the US illegally, and give those on or wishing to go on welfare the choice: job skills training, with job application assistance, or work the fields (or really any other jobs that are currently being done by predominately illegal folks). In my mind, this would most likely free up the entry level jobs (such as fast food) for those just starting into the workforce (ie, those who are 15-18 and still in high school or whatever it is called in various countries). I may be way out in left field here, but I think it would be fairly safe to assume that most people on welfare would take up the "school" option and try to move up.

I agree in principal, but it gets complicated pretty quickly. A mate got a job in a call centre, they identified he was pretty cluey and charismatic and promoted him through the ranks quickly, until he became a trainer of other staff. The company was pretty screwy, so about three months after his last promotion they laid him and about half the training team off, giving them all pretty generous redundancies. He lived off that money for ages, before qualifying for the dole

And for the drug testing thing, I know that my father, who works for a sporting goods store has gotten drug testing. So really, I should have explained that it's those who do have jobs and are required to get drug testing to keep that job are well in their rights to demand those on welfare get tested as well. I have no idea how many states actually do this, and how well it works, I just know that I have recently seen on the national news, and cable news sources that there have been moves to require drug testing, and many people including the ACLU are getting up in arms about it for some ridiculous reason.

I think there's an issue with people being seriously weird about marijuana, because even though you can smoke marijuana and hold a steady job just as easily as you can drink beer and hold a steady job, people pretend that isn't true. Someone losing their job or being denied benefits because they smoked a joint last week is really crazy.

The other issue is that drug testing isn't cheap, and only likely to save money if we accept the 'everyone knows' idea that most people on welfare are just drug taking losers. The problem is that isn't true, and it looks like drug use among people claiming welfare is about as common as it is in regular society.

As for the civil liberties of it... well I think if you're going to ask the state for money to help you out, the state gets the right to know things about you. Like if you're looking for work, or if you're taking drugs (serious ones, not dope). So that part isn't a problem, but those other two bits are.

sebster wrote:

When government goes beyond protecting people's rights and becomes a provider evolution stops happening. Today it is easier then ever to be an inept fether and have a bunch of fether kids that in less then two decades will repeat the cycle.

Which is why we're having poor families with more and more children in every generation.

Also, protecting what people think are their rights goes against that understanding of "survival of the fittest", which always leads to the question Fit for what?"

sebster wrote:

The intelligent are being out bred stupid at an astonishing rate.

Which is why each generation is testing lower and lower in intelligence tests. Except, of course, the exact opposite is happening. Hmmm, it's almost as if human intelligence is a much more complex thing, involving education, upbringing and all kinds of other factors.

It also assumes is entirely genetic, which it almost certainly isn't.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:I don't actually think we're addressing a key question at the heart of this issue: Is it morally justifiable to 'redistribute' wealth from one group of people to another group of people who do nothing to earn that wealth?

I think it's fundamentally mistaken to consider your paycheque to be something you earned in isolation from society, and the various systems it has put in place.

I'm not sure that's connected to the question I asked... If I have more (which I don't, generally), why should some be taken from me and given to someone who has less, just to make us equal?

There is no glass ceiling imposed, unless you have a top marginal rate of tax of 100%. While in the past top marginal rates have been extremely high, at present around the world you rarely see top marginal rates above 50%.

To me, 50% seems punitive - it's like a punishment for simply being rich. Shouldn't we be encouraging people to be rich?

Is this not just the politics of jealousy?

It is the politics of jealousy when the argument is 'we should tax the rich, because they have too much'. This is certainly an argument that we see, and see far too often.

But there is another argument, 'we need to provide for these people to help them become self-sustaining members of society, and to pay for that we need to tax people who already have a lot', and that is an entirely different, and much better argument.

It's an almost identical argument, because it entails looking at what someone has and saying 'yep, you've got enough - you can give up 50% of your yearly income'.

Albatross wrote:
To me, 50% seems punitive - it's like a punishment for simply being rich. Shouldn't we be encouraging people to be rich?

As always, it depends. The middle class has a habit of objecting to people being too rich (Not the poor though, they care more about eating.), and since they tend to make up the majority of any given military...messiness can ensue.

People probably should try and get rich, you know enough about me to know I have few, if any, scruples. But there will always be more relatively less fortunate people, and the hands of the rich can only hold so many guns.

Albatross wrote:
It's an almost identical argument, because it entails looking at what someone has and saying 'yep, you've got enough - you can give up 50% of your yearly income'.

Its also not far from the "Work harder!" argument.

The vagaries of morality/ethics.

History shows that taxation rates above ~40% tend to be followed by rebellions and civil wars. -- Sorry I can't cite examples I've just heard this from too many knowledgable sources.

I keep seeing examples like: Do the poor need widescreen TVs? (Well No, No-one NEEDS a widescreen TV)

I would posit that the rich don't need private jets and houses the size of hotels either.

The ability to acumulate wealth should be available to people who wish to.

I once had the thought to introduce Taxation rate on a curve rather than as block sections as we have it now and incorporate a welfare aspect to it. So your Tax free allowance would change with your circumstances and you would be taxed an extra 1% per unit of income on that unit (1% on the first 1000, 2% on the second 1000 etc.) up to a maximum rate of 42% total (because I like Douglas Adams's work). An extra 2% tax to be charged for the first 3 multiples of 20 times avarage wage.
This would produce a curve and would mean companies would not have to give huge pay rises for individuals to receive small pay rises.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

sourclams wrote:Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.

No, it's just that you haven't allowed for inflation. A trillion dollars now is worth a great deal less than in 1970.

Your point still falls down.

If the majority voted themselves rewards at the expense of the rich, the rich would not be so rich and the poor would not be so poor.

And inflation would be astronomical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:I don't actually think we're addressing a key question at the heart of this issue: Is it morally justifiable to 'redistribute' wealth from one group of people to another group of people who do nothing to earn that wealth? Also, is it possible do so with fundamentally limiting the freedom to succeed, by imposing a glass ceiling on the wealth a person is 'allowed' to accumulate? Is this not just the politics of jealousy?

One could argue that there comes a point where accumulation of wealth is taking money from the majority in a fashion that is not "earned".

Personally I am not jealous of the rich, I am suspicious. I also wonder why a person on a single national average wage can not afford to raise a family in this country without some form of benefit.

Sonophos wrote:History shows that taxation rates above ~40% tend to be followed by rebellions and civil wars. -- Sorry I can't cite examples I've just heard this from too many knowledgable sources.

In certain brackets. Just look at US tax history, it doesn't reflect what you're saying.

It also depends on who its assessed on. The Netherlands aren't in danger of revolt.

Sonophos wrote:
This would produce a curve and would mean companies would not have to give huge pay rises for individuals to receive small pay rises.

They don't, and haven't ever in recent history. Even the Health Care Bill doesn't entail that.

dogma wrote:

Sonophos wrote:History shows that taxation rates above ~40% tend to be followed by rebellions and civil wars. -- Sorry I can't cite examples I've just heard this from too many knowledgable sources.

In certain brackets. Just look at US tax history, it doesn't reflect what you're saying.

It also depends on who its assessed on. The Netherlands aren't in danger of revolt.

Sonophos wrote:
This would produce a curve and would mean companies would not have to give huge pay rises for individuals to receive small pay rises.

They don't, and haven't ever in recent history. Even the Health Care Bill doesn't entail that.

The UK PAYE tax system has large "jumps" at certain income levels so it is possible to recieve a pay rise and have your take home pay decrease, this is a stupid state of affairs.

Ahtman wrote:The reason poor people tend to be overweight (though some are emaciated as well) is becuase crappy food tends to be much cheaper than healthier foods

Actually, crappy food is more expensive than healthier foods - it's just easier to acquire in a state fit for consumption. A cheeseburger at McDonalds costs what, a couple dollars? For that you could buy enough food to sustain you all day. The price per calorie of food in the US is around $.001/calorie; a 2000 calorie/day diet costs about $2/day.

It's easy to eat crappy foods, it's more difficult to eat healthy food.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:When you guarantee someone a benefit then they are more likely to use that benefit. If the guaranteed minimum welfare was $1000/month, you won't have people accepting jobs paying less than $1000/mo, thereby leaving jobs unfilled. Instead of simply destroying $1000/mo. by giving it to the recipient, you're also destroying up to $1000/mo. in benefit that could have been provided to someone else.

Which is why, of course, welfare doesn't work like that.

Funny, I thought that's exactly what the 1996 Welfare Reform Act was intended to correct.

Of course, I'm not strictly speaking of "Welfare," but all public welfare benefits, including food stamps, etc. Those tend to be fixed amounts of money. Again, when you don't know what you're talking about, it's usually best not to speak.

sebster wrote:Further, there are alternatives to government benefits - particularly social charity.

We tried this. It was called the industrial revolution. It was a complete disaster and so we stopped doing it.

Lynata wrote:

Albatross wrote:So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair?

In essence, yes, because the alternative would be to see the people on the receiving end may not survive without it, or at the very least will find it a lot harder to get back on their feet. By only giving them the barest minimum, however, we create an incentive for them to become active again - provided their labour is actually wanted.

...and this is the crux of the problem. We exchange our labour for money, and the market decides how much that labour is worth. Is it the fault of wealthy people that their labour is worth more? Should they be punished for it? We have equality of opportunity in this country (or as close as is possible) in terms of education - everyone has the opportunity (if not the ability) to learn valuable skills and exchange their labour for an amount of money that would give them a comfortable life. I come from a poor background. It hasn't stopped me from going to university.

I'm also putting forth the notion that there is a percentage amongst the "affording" group whose labour is in no relation to the excessive amount of money they receive - at the cost of the majority.

I would dispute 'at the cost of the majority' - someone being wealthy does not preclude your being equally or more wealthy. Also, you feel that wealthy people don't deserve the price they get for their labour because? As I said, the market decides what something is worth. That's no reason to punish individuals.

Albatross wrote:I think 'tax the rich more because they can afford it' is class warfare, pure and simple.

Well, 'feth welfare, let them rot' is class warfare, too, just that it gets fanned by those who would be negatively affected if the version you mentioned got out of hand. Social classes exist, which isn't so nice to begin with, but we have to acknowledge that one is inevitably trying to outmaneuver or instrumentalize another.

That's true, but vilifying the rich doesn't make one less poor, and I'm certainly not advocating that we should let poor people 'rot'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:One could argue that there comes a point where accumulation of wealth is taking money from the majority in a fashion that is not "earned".

Feel free to argue that, by all means, just don't conflate 'earn' with 'deserve'. You can earn something without truly deserving it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

AustonT wrote:KK what is your personal opinion of Norway's current state?

In general very good.

They seem to have achieved a strong democratic constitutional monarchy with a liberal modern society, an excellent economic base in several different sectors, largely carbon neutral power generation, and a high degree of security and income for the whole population.

Their booze tax looks rather high, though.

I couldn't personally live there because as you rightly pointed out they have a different societal mentality, but by and large I agree with you. Norway, for Norwegians, seems to be a fantastic success story. I read an article a few years ago now that called Germany,Denmark,Norway, and Sweden the "Hansa States" and predicted that their success would eclipse the rest of Europe if something didn't significantly change.

Kilkrazy wrote:[
If the majority voted themselves rewards at the expense of the rich, the rich would not be so rich and the poor would not be so poor.

This is everything that's wrong with the idea of social welfare. It's a safety net, not a redistribution program...to be fair I might have this out of context I thread filtered KK.

Sonophos wrote:
The UK PAYE tax system has large "jumps" at certain income levels so it is possible to recieve a pay rise and have your take home pay decrease, this is a stupid state of affairs.

I don't know the UK tax code, but I don't trust anyone who says "large", or "small" when quantifiable date should exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Actually, crappy food is more expensive than healthier foods - it's just easier to acquire in a state fit for consumption. A cheeseburger at McDonalds costs what, a couple dollars? For that you could buy enough food to sustain you all day. The price per calorie of food in the US is around $.001/calorie; a 2000 calorie/day diet costs about $2/day.

Shockingly, calories are not the only important thing in terms of nutrition.

That canola oil may look mighty calorific, but if I drink nothing but canola oil my health may suffer, and it would still cost 1.4 USD per day. The cheeseburger, eaten 3 times per day, is healthier than the oil; though more expensive.

biccat wrote:
It's easy to eat crappy foods, it's more difficult to eat healthy food.

Because they cost more per calorie.

I can see the attraction of the "invisible hand" argument but it is far too simplistic and allows too much exposure to moral hazard in the form of reciprocation and monopoly.

Where remuneration is handed out in the form of bonuses there is room for argument about what is deserving. One of the main reasons that executives are getting high payments is that they sit on each others boards and remuneration commitees. There is more than a little cartel like behaviour that has led to this point BECAUSE the market has not been allowed to operate freely.

biccat wrote:
Of course, I'm not strictly speaking of "Welfare," but all public welfare benefits, including food stamps, etc. Those tend to be fixed amounts of money. Again, when you don't know what you're talking about, it's usually best not to speak.

Indeed. When you use the word welfare as a specific term that doesn't include police protection, fire protection, the military, etc.; you probably shouldn't speak.

biccat wrote:
Social philanthropy was at it's heyday during the industrial revolution - and it worked surprisingly well. Life in the US before the introduction of public welfare was actually pretty good.

So you're claiming that its now bad? That social welfare does not follow from, by evidence, improved conditions of the middle class?

It's just a misunderstanding of the way the tax bands work.

Here are the UK income tax bands for 2012-2013.

£1--8,105 = 0%
£8,106--34,370 = 20%
£34,371--150,000 = 40%
£150,001+ = 50%

You only pay the rate for the slice of your salary that falls into the tax band. In other words, someone on £160,000 a year would pay the following

£4,999 at the 50% rate
£46,251 at the 40% rate
£5,252 at the 20% rate

For a total of £56,502 at an aggregate rate of 35.3%

Actually, crappy food is more expensive than healthier foods - it's just easier to acquire in a state fit for consumption.

A McD cheeseburger is ninety-nine cents. 70/30 ground beef is about three dollars a pound whereas 95/5 ground beef is $6. If you are on a very limited budget ,and especially if you have to feed multiple people, it is difficult to double the cost for the same amount of food. The difference in calories? 70/30 is 279 calories and 25.2 grams of fat per 3 ounces whereas 95/5 is 31 calories and 1.4 grams of fat per 3 ounces.

It's easy to eat crappy foods, it's more difficult to eat healthy food.

It isn't any easier to eat 95/5 then it is 70/30, just more expensive. When you don't know what you're talking about, it's usually best not to speak.

Life in the US before the introduction of public welfare was actually pretty good.

Unless of course you were:

Italian
Irish
Black
Asian
Female
Poor
Disabled


Other than that, good times.

dogma wrote:Shockingly, calories are not the only important thing in terms of nutrition.

That canola oil may look mighty calorific, but if I drink nothing but canola oil my health may suffer, and it would still cost 1.4 USD per day. The cheeseburger, eaten 3 times per day, is healthier than the oil; though more expensive.

The cheeseburger, surprisingly, is a product that hasn't, and couldn't have, existed except for the last 100 years or so. Most people throughout the world live on far simpler meals than cheeseburgers, french fries, and coca cola.

Poor people in a number of countries eat well without access to fast food. Grains and beans are cheap.

dogma wrote:Because they cost more per calorie.

Only if you're talking about acquisition cost, not if you're talking about actual price.

Sonophos wrote:I can see the attraction of the "invisible hand" argument but it is far too simplistic

The "invisible hand" is simplistic, but having someone dictating how to distribute wealth is not?

dogma wrote:So you're claiming that its now bad? That social welfare does not follow from, by evidence, improved conditions of the middle class?

Nope, I'm saying that it could be better. That which is unseen, perhaps.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's just a misunderstanding of the way the tax bands work.

Here are the UK income tax bands for 2012-2013.

£1--8,105 = 0%
£8,106--34,370 = 20%
£34,371--150,000 = 40%
£150,001+ = 50%

You only pay the rate for the slice of your salary that falls into the tax band. In other words, someone on £160,000 a year would pay the following

£4,999 at the 50% rate
£46,251 at the 40% rate
£5,252 at the 20% rate

For a total of £56,502 at an aggregate rate of 35.3%

Thanks for that KK, I had been mislead and I've never earned in the low or higher brackets.

There is National Insurance to think about as well, of course. That has a different set of bands and rates.

FACT: Everyone has opportunity from birth to be prosperous. That's that "All men are created" you might have read in the best document ever written.
FACT: Poor people do not utilize that opportunity, that is how they choose to be poor.
FACT: Prosperity and Wealth are good for the country and cause it grow. Poverty and Destitution are bad for the country and cause it to become weaker.
FACT: Those that choose to help the country are Patriots and Heroes. Those that choose to hurt the country are Traitors and Criminals.
FACT: Because being poor is a choice, poor people are choosing to be Traitors & Enemies of the state.
CONCLUSION: Being poor is Treason. Arrest the poor people (more than we do already).

biccat wrote:
The cheeseburger, surprisingly, is a product that hasn't, and couldn't have, existed except for the last 100 years or so.

About 90, though not the McD's version.

Canola oil came about in the 70's though (long after McD's in the 40's), so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

biccat wrote:
Most people throughout the world live on far simpler meals than cheeseburgers, french fries, and coca cola.

Not for long, if we're speaking nutritionally. There is this pervasive idea in the West that Western food is somehow necessarily more complicated than that outside the West, it isn't. People ignorant of nutrition think that. Granted, the cheeseburger, Coke, and fries are not necessarily nutritious, or even unique, but that isn't the point you made. After all, we in the US we don't like our complete proteins to come from animals, and we who do aren't usually poor.

biccat wrote:
Poor people in a number of countries eat well without access to fast food. Grains and beans are cheap.

Shockingly, grains aren't all the same, and beans aren't complete proteins; nor are most grains. And that's before we get into mineral necessities.

Then we get into vitamin deficiencies, contamination issues (Why does my tuna/dolphin taste like mercury?), etc.

biccat wrote:
Only if you're talking about acquisition cost, not if you're talking about actual price.

I don't even know what you mean by actual price, or why you're bringing up acquisition cost*.


*Lies, I know exactly why.

Rice + frozen veg + stock + small amount of chicken = meal cheaper and healthier than McD burger meal.

Sonophos wrote:Rice + frozen veg + stock + small amount of chicken = meal cheaper and healthier than McD burger meal.

Sawdust + roaches + Chernobyl dirt = meal healthier AND TASTIER than McD burger meal. Wait I think I just described Taco Bell's "tacos."

Their coffee is excellent though.

Sonophos wrote:Rice + frozen veg + stock + small amount of chicken = meal cheaper and healthier than McD burger meal.

What's the portion size, and what are the nutritional qualities?

Its not as simple as McD=bad, all other things=good.

dogma wrote:

Sonophos wrote:Rice + frozen veg + stock + small amount of chicken = meal cheaper and healthier than McD burger meal.

What's the portion size, and what are the nutritional qualities?

Its not as simple as McD=bad, all other things=good.

Rice for bulk, 1-2 portions of veg and very little chicken


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:FACT: Everyone has opportunity from birth to be prosperous. That's that "All men are created" you might have read in the best document ever written.
FACT: Poor people do not utilize that opportunity, that is how they choose to be poor.
FACT: Prosperity and Wealth are good for the country and cause it grow. Poverty and Destitution are bad for the country and cause it to become weaker.
FACT: Those that choose to help the country are Patriots and Heroes. Those that choose to hurt the country are Traitors and Criminals.
FACT: Because being poor is a choice, poor people are choosing to be Traitors & Enemies of the state.
CONCLUSION: Being poor is Treason. Arrest the poor people (more than we do already).

Nope still not sure if you are being sarcastic.

dogma wrote:Canola oil came about in the 70's though (long after McD's in the 40's), so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

My point is that a cheeseburger, while delicious and nutritious, is a fairly recent addition to our diet. Before the cheeseburger there wasn't mass starvation and nutrition deficiency. No one considers the cheeseburger to be a revolution in increasing human longevity.

dogma wrote:Not for long, if we're speaking nutritionally.

We need a "WTF" orkmoticon. Seriously.

dogma wrote:After all, we in the US we don't like our complete proteins to come from animals, and we who do aren't usually poor.

See previous.

dogma wrote:Shockingly, grains aren't all the same, and beans aren't complete proteins; nor are most grains. And that's before we get into mineral necessities.

What? Seriously, what? Humans can get all of their essential amino acids from combinations of grains and beans. You don't need to eat animal protein to survive. Vegetarians do this regularly.

Where's that :wtf: orkmoticon...

Sonophos wrote:
Rice for bulk, 1-2 portions of veg and very little chicken

5 lb bag of rice = ~5 USD

5 lb frozen spinach = ~8 USD

We'll say, 2 lb chicken = ~3 USD

So, that's 16 USD; reasonable.

The problem is that its only like (generously) 5000 calories, and may not be accessible at the lowest possible prices; and that's assuming the best possible chicken.

biccat wrote:
My point is that a cheeseburger, while delicious and nutritious, is a fairly recent addition to our diet. Before the cheeseburger there wasn't mass starvation and nutrition deficiency. No one considers the cheeseburger to be a revolution in increasing human longevity.

And kudos to you, because the cheeseburger was a, at best, an analogy throughout this thread.

biccat wrote:
We need a "WTF" orkmoticon. Seriously.

First, I have no idea what you mean by "simple". Containing fewer ingredients? Containing fewer nutritional components?

But, when I hear "simple" as regards nutrition, or more broadly food, I think of what it satisfies given human needs that are contingent on "I don't want to die."

Given that, the burger, fries, and Coke are less complicated than many natural, indigenous, peasant foods.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:After all, we in the US we don't like our complete proteins to come from animals, and we who do aren't usually poor.

See previous.

Eliminate the "don't", it was a typo from a re-write.

biccat wrote:
What? Seriously, what? Humans can get all of their essential amino acids from combinations of grains and beans. You don't need to eat animal protein to survive. Vegetarians do this regularly.

If you eat the right combination of beans, and the right combination of grains.

Again, not all grains are the same, nor are all beans.

dogma wrote:
If you eat the right combination of beans, and the right combination of grains.

Again, not all grains are the same, nor are all beans.

You're right dogma, the proper grains and their proportions are in the bible.

Kilkrazy wrote:

sourclams wrote:Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.

No, it's just that you haven't allowed for inflation. A trillion dollars now is worth a great deal less than in 1970.

Your point still falls down.

In inflation-adjusted currency, 2010 GDP is equivalent to $2.4 trillion 1970 dollars, so you've got a "real" increase of 2.4x magnitude.

Hence, my original point, wealth concentration is meaningless when wealth is generally being created. Steve Jobs inventing the iPod and making money does not somehow make my quality of living worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Poor people in a number of countries eat well without access to fast food. Grains and beans are cheap.

While knowing how to turn a raw legume into bean soup has been a survival skill necessary through most of history, America has largely forgotten how to cook. Or, more aptly, the end consumer has relied on the food processors and serivice industries to provide food for us at minimal time cost, for which we pay significantly more than its composite retail-weight value, but oftentimes for a portion sizing that is impossible to procure individually (1/4 lb cooked weight hamburger, 1 bun, 1 leaf of lettuce, 1 piece of cheese, for example).

Just like how someone on government food assistance owning an iphone boggles my mind, I also can't dredge up much sympathy for the morbidly obese poor.

AustonT wrote:

dogma wrote:
If you eat the right combination of beans, and the right combination of grains.

Again, not all grains are the same, nor are all beans.

You're right dogma, the proper grains and their proportions are in the bible.

Along with everything else a person needs to know, I might add.

Chongara wrote:

AustonT wrote:

dogma wrote:
If you eat the right combination of beans, and the right combination of grains.

Again, not all grains are the same, nor are all beans.

You're right dogma, the proper grains and their proportions are in the bible.

Along with everything else a person needs to know, I might add.

Eh...I dunno if I'd go along with that. Unless you use the Ben Kenobi "from a certain point of view" logic.

Albatross wrote:I'm not sure that's connected to the question I asked... If I have more (which I don't, generally), why should some be taken from me and given to someone who has less, just to make us equal?

The problem is your question is dependant on the assumption that your gross pay is somehow inherently 'yours'.

You walk into a company and say 'can I please have a job' and company says 'okay, we'll pay you $200 a day, and as part of being an employee in this society you'll be expected to pay 10% of that to government in taxes'.

You get your paycheque, then complain that government has taken $20 of 'your' money. But when you agreed to that job, you knew full well you'd be expected to pay taxes. You knew full well you would be taxed, and in agreeing to the job you are, in effect, agreeing to be taxed at that rate.

Now, you might claim that the job, and your income, are a private deal between you and the company, and that government is coming in and interfering with that, but it's completely wrong. The company wouldn't exist without the property laws, contract laws and all the other systems put in place by the same government that established the tax system.

The system that allows a person to create an income of $100,000 is the same system that takes 25% away in taxes.

It's an almost identical argument, because it entails looking at what someone has and saying 'yep, you've got enough - you can give up 50% of your yearly income'.

The argument 'we should take you money because you have too much' is fundamentally different to 'we need to raise money and you're the person who has lots'.

The motivation in one is punishment, the motivation in the second is to generate revenue to pay for things they think are worthwhile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Also, protecting what people think are their rights goes against that understanding of "survival of the fittest", which always leads to the question Fit for what?"

Yeah, good point. It's even more of a nonsense than I first thought.

It also assumes is entirely genetic, which it almost certainly isn't.

I was hinting at that but didn't outright say it. Cheers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:History shows that taxation rates above ~40% tend to be followed by rebellions and civil wars. -- Sorry I can't cite examples I've just heard this from too many knowledgable sources.

The knowledge of those knowledgeable people doesn't extend to historic or present day tax rates. There are a wide number of countries with top marginal rates about 40% right now, for most of my life the effective top marginal rate in Australia was over 50%, and yet there's never been one second's talk of revolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:The UK PAYE tax system has large "jumps" at certain income levels so it is possible to recieve a pay rise and have your take home pay decrease, this is a stupid state of affairs.

It doesn't, you just don't understand the system. When you jump from one pay scale to another, it doesn't apply to every dollar you've earned up to that point, just to each dollar you earn that moment on.

Here's the UK tax rates (it's a bit simplified because there's different rates for dividends and things, but if you're just collecting a paycheque this is what you face;
£0 - £7,445 0%
£7,445 - £37,400 20%
£37,400 - £150,000 40%
Over £150,000 50%

What that means is that up to £7,445 you don't pay any tax. If you go over that you start paying 20% on each pound over £7,445, but you still don't pay any tax on that first £7,445. The same happens if you earn over £37,400, you start paying 40% on ech pound over that, but you still don't pay any tax on the first £7,445, and only 20% on the stuff between £7,445 and £37,400.

So, say I earned £100,000. I would pay no tax on £7,445 of my income. I would pay 0% on £7,445. I would pay 20% on £29,955 (£37400 - £7445) and I would pay 40% on £62,600 (£100,000 - £37,400).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Funny, I thought that's exactly what the 1996 Welfare Reform Act was intended to correct.

Uh huh, so your evidence for a thing is it being corrected. Doesn't really do much to make an argument for a pressing problem, does it?

No, the industrial revolution was...well, let me quote wikipedia:

The Industrial Revolution was a period from 1750 to 1850 where changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and technology had a profound effect on the social, economic and cultural conditions of the times.

Or, see here.

At this point it becomes obvious you've not studied economic history in any form in your life, but you're going to pretend otherwise.

What you've done is look up the dates of the First Industrial Revolution, which is typically seen to end in 1850. Of course, not actually having studied the subject, you'd be unaware that the First Industrial Revolution was only considered to end, because of the beginning of the Second Industrial Revolution, which went from 1850 to the beginning of WWI. Now, if we were talking about the move away from collective farming practices, or Britain being the primary driver of growth and scientific development, there's good reason to look primarily at the First revolution in exclusion to the second.

Given we weren't talking about those things, then your lack of awareness of the Second Revolution basically makes you look silly.

Social philanthropy was at it's heyday during the industrial revolution - and it worked surprisingly well. Life in the US before the introduction of public welfare was actually pretty good.

There's actually times when I honest to God have to just look at the screen, and really come to terms with the fact that there's a person out there in the world that believes this stuff. That someone has gotten to adulthood without being aware of living standards for the poor before the welfare state is just an incredible thing.

In 1900 in Europe and the US around one person in four lived at subsistance level, with one in ten unable to earn enough to offset hunger. Forget worrying about food lacking nutrition, one in ten didn't have enough to full their bellies, even when all they were buying was cheap grains and the like.

Even forgetting stats like that, have you read no literature from the 19th C or early 20th C? No Dickens? No Steinbeck? Do you understand they were actually commenting on conditions as they were at the time?

You really need to understand that you know absolutely nothing about this, and it's fething ridiculous to just make up stuff that sounds nice.

dogma wrote:

Sonophos wrote:
Rice for bulk, 1-2 portions of veg and very little chicken

5 lb bag of rice = ~5 USD

5 lb frozen spinach = ~8 USD

We'll say, 2 lb chicken = ~3 USD

So, that's 16 USD; reasonable.

The problem is that its only like (generously) 5000 calories, and may not be accessible at the lowest possible prices; and that's assuming the best possible chicken.

That's enough for 5-10 meals! I tend to use a bowl for eating not a bucket.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I found this last night:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c2y2b/Panorama_Poor_America/

Sorry it's a long one but these things just don't happen in europe, well maybe some homelessness.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Look up their stats, they are pretty impressive.

There are two points:

1. It's the kind of Euro socialist utopia/dystopia posited by the original poster.

2. It could probably never happen in the USA because people have a different personality.

Also, avoid Brunost cheese. It is their equivalent of marmite or natto.

Doesn't Norway have like 4MM people?
Wait Wiki says 20% of their GDP is from hydrocarbons. Thats a fair example of...nothing then.

On the positive they have killer (as is cool) trolls. I like the Mountain Trolls the best.

Troll Hunter is an awesome movie :-)

Sonophos wrote:
That's enough for 5-10 meals! I tend to use a bowl for eating not a bucket.

Assuming 2000 calories per day, we're talking 2.5 days of food. If you eat three, equivalent (~666 calories), meals per day that's 7 meals.

That's ~2 dollars per meal, which is 6 USD per day, and about 180 USD per month.

And that's still not healthy, by the standards of what "healthy" means in the modern world.

By contrast, I can fulfill the same calorific needs with 5 McDoubles for about 1 USD less, and if you're that concerned about food cost, you're probably that concerned about 1 USD less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:
You're right dogma, the proper grains and their proportions are in the bible.

Its more that, if you want to assemble a complete protein from beans and grains alone, you can't just grab a bean, and grab a grain.

You could just grab quinoa, if you can afford it's price by volume, or even find it.

Lordhat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Look up their stats, they are pretty impressive.

There are two points:

1. It's the kind of Euro socialist utopia/dystopia posited by the original poster.

2. It could probably never happen in the USA because people have a different personality.

Also, avoid Brunost cheese. It is their equivalent of marmite or natto.

Doesn't Norway have like 4MM people?
Wait Wiki says 20% of their GDP is from hydrocarbons. Thats a fair example of...nothing then.

On the positive they have killer (as is cool) trolls. I like the Mountain Trolls the best.

Troll Hunter is an awesome movie :-)

Yes, yes it was.

I've been eating quinoa in salads lately. I had no idea it was such a super grain.

Kilkrazy wrote:I've been eating quinoa in salads lately. I had no idea it was such a super grain.

Its pretty great, nutritionally. I find it difficult to cook though, but hat's likely a lack of experience.

My wife cooks it. I just scarf it down.

I think she boils it or steams it.

Did anybody watch that panorama program poor America ?

Sorry forgot link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c2y2b/Panorama_Poor_America/

loki old fart wrote:Did anybody watch that panorama program poor America ?

Sorry forgot link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c2y2b/Panorama_Poor_America/

"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes [sic] are available to play in the UK only"

sourclams wrote:Yeah, social safety nets are a good idea.

Ultimately, however, it's a balancing act.

Unemployment insurance? Good idea. Unemployment insurance for more than a year? Two years? Eventually you're just prolonging the inevitable; that individual's skills have badly decayed or the market has changed for that skill set and they will have to accept a significantly worse role than what they had before.

Such as being unemployed because the market itself is flawed and needs to be fixed which is something beyond the power of he person who is unemployed.

Unemployment has a valuable economic effect in holding down the cost of labour.

Kilkrazy wrote:Unemployment has a valuable economic effect in holding down the cost of labour.

And a not so valuable economic effect of reducing demand.

Melissia wrote:Such as being unemployed because the market itself is flawed and needs to be fixed which is something beyond the power of he person who is unemployed.

Unemployment has been dropping like a rock. Just as significantly, underemployment has been dropping like a rock. Get out of the minority.

sourclams wrote:

Melissia wrote:Such as being unemployed because the market itself is flawed and needs to be fixed which is something beyond the power of he person who is unemployed.

Unemployment has been dropping like a rock. Just as significantly, underemployment has been dropping like a rock. Get out of the minority.

Huh? Care to explain this?

biccat wrote:

loki old fart wrote:Did anybody watch that panorama program poor America ?

Sorry forgot link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c2y2b/Panorama_Poor_America/

"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes [sic] are available to play in the UK only"

RoW friendly link: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/poor-america/

biccat wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Melissia wrote:Such as being unemployed because the market itself is flawed and needs to be fixed which is something beyond the power of he person who is unemployed.

Unemployment has been dropping like a rock. Just as significantly, underemployment has been dropping like a rock. Get out of the minority.

Huh? Care to explain this?

Yup, I would like to know where you get those claims. Minitruth? Fox News? some other reputable source?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Latest surveys are 15.1% undermployment, 8.3% seasonally adjusted unemployment.

This is a drop of about 1% decline in the indices in both metrics since the stagnation levels of 2011 Q2-Q3. For CY 2012 the US is setting up for a significant snapback in general economic recovery, a considerable outperformance of pretty much everyone's (including mine) intermediate-term forecasts. Unemployment might begin to 'consolidate' a little bit around 8% for a couple months, but the momentum is clearly in favor of breakouts to the low end.

sourclams wrote:

Melissia wrote:Such as being unemployed because the market itself is flawed and needs to be fixed which is something beyond the power of he person who is unemployed.

Unemployment has been dropping like a rock. Just as significantly, underemployment has been dropping like a rock. Get out of the minority.

No the RATE has been dropping. Actual unemployment, underemployement, and people who are discouraged and quit looking (hence dropped from the rolls) not so much. I love me's statistics.

No, actual unemployment, and actual underemployment, are actually declining. The private sector gains have completely offset the public sector declines.

The number of unemployed plus the number of those who would lilke a job (commonly referred to as the labor pool) is roughly 20 million, even including the recent spike higher, which is well, well below the 'high spikes' of 2011 and 2010 which were around 22 million.

Lordhat wrote:

biccat wrote:

loki old fart wrote:Did anybody watch that panorama program poor America ?

Sorry forgot link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c2y2b/Panorama_Poor_America/

"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes [sic] are available to play in the UK only"

RoW friendly link: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/poor-america/

Thanks for posting that.

Makes me think how much I'm prepared to spend on modeling, and how little on my fellow man.

sourclams wrote:No, actual unemployment, and actual underemployment, are actually declining. The private sector gains have completely offset the public sector declines.

The number of unemployed plus the number of those who would lilke a job (commonly referred to as the labor pool) is roughly 20 million, even including the recent spike higher, which is well, well below the 'high spikes' of 2011 and 2010 which were around 22 million.

No, actual unemployment is not down. Everybody I knew 3 years ago who was looking for work... is still looking for work.

sourclams wrote:No, actual unemployment, and actual underemployment, are actually declining. The private sector gains have completely offset the public sector declines.

The number of unemployed plus the number of those who would lilke a job (commonly referred to as the labor pool) is roughly 20 million, even including the recent spike higher, which is well, well below the 'high spikes' of 2011 and 2010 which were around 22 million.

There has been a slight decline. However, if you factor in the employment base in 2008, unemployement would be 10%. The denominator is being played with.

For real unemployment to drop you need 400,000 to 500,000 in new jobs a month. 200,000 is literally just breakeven.

And before anyone goes off their rocker, I'd love 500,000 a month in employment gains for the next three years, even if means Obama retains the White House.

loki old fart wrote:

Lordhat wrote:RoW friendly link: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/poor-america/

Thanks for posting that.

Agreed, thanks for the RoW link.

Lordhat wrote:

sourclams wrote:No, actual unemployment, and actual underemployment, are actually declining. The private sector gains have completely offset the public sector declines.

The number of unemployed plus the number of those who would lilke a job (commonly referred to as the labor pool) is roughly 20 million, even including the recent spike higher, which is well, well below the 'high spikes' of 2011 and 2010 which were around 22 million.

No, actual unemployment is not down. Everybody I knew 3 years ago who was looking for work... is still looking for work.

Well, that's not really indicative.

The labor participation rate is generally a better indicator of employment trends. And it's been down for the last couple of months that "unemployment" dropped. It doesn't account for people dropping out of the labor market for retirement, but I don't think retirement rate accounts for all of the change.

Frazzled wrote:There has been a slight decline. However, if you factor in the employment base in 2008, unemployement would be 10%. The denominator is being played with.

I'm looking at shorter- term trends; what would be referred to as the change 'at the margin'. The margin is really where interactions become interesting.

The aggregate economic environment is not going to be at pre-pop 2008 levels for quite some time. They are, however, going to improve markedly versus 2009-2010. And it looks like 2012 is going to be quite a bit better than 2011.

And 500k would be quite a bit better than b/e. In 2008 you averaged about 250k lost per month, 500k in '09. 2010 was b/e, 2011 was up, and now 2012 is starting out at a greater rate than 2007, believe it or not (I'm looking at labor force net changes MoM btw).

So yeah, we have a long way to go, no disagreement, but we've 'made the turn', so to speak. There's a reason equities have been En Fuego (S&P, DJIA, NASDAQ), and as those run so too will employment.

And it's been down for the last couple of months that "unemployment" dropped. It doesn't account for people dropping out of the labor market for retirement, but I don't think retirement rate accounts for all of the change.

I think you mean it 'does' account for people dropping out of the labor market? Retirement plans and 401ks have likely rebounded to a level where retirement-age individuals can comfortably do so, which helps to clear way for others to move up.

sourclams wrote:

And it's been down for the last couple of months that "unemployment" dropped. It doesn't account for people dropping out of the labor market for retirement, but I don't think retirement rate accounts for all of the change.

I think you mean it 'does' account for people dropping out of the labor market? Retirement plans and 401ks have likely rebounded to a level where retirement-age individuals can comfortably do so, which helps to clear way for others to move up.

No, the labor participation rate is based on the number of people 16 and up. There is no distinction between someone leaving the labor force due to retirement and someone leaving the labor force due to losing their job.

Therefore, the labor force participation rate does not accont for people dropping out of the labor market due to retirement.

sourclams wrote:

Frazzled wrote:There has been a slight decline. However, if you factor in the employment base in 2008, unemployement would be 10%. The denominator is being played with.

I'm looking at shorter- term trends; what would be referred to as the change 'at the margin'. The margin is really where interactions become interesting.

The aggregate economic environment is not going to be at pre-pop 2008 levels for quite some time. They are, however, going to improve markedly versus 2009-2010. And it looks like 2012 is going to be quite a bit better than 2011.

And 500k would be quite a bit better than b/e. In 2008 you averaged about 250k lost per month, 500k in '09. 2010 was b/e, 2011 was up, and now 2012 is starting out at a greater rate than 2007, believe it or not (I'm looking at labor force net changes MoM btw).

So yeah, we have a long way to go, no disagreement, but we've 'made the turn', so to speak. There's a reason equities have been En Fuego (S&P, DJIA, NASDAQ), and as those run so too will employment.

And it's been down for the last couple of months that "unemployment" dropped. It doesn't account for people dropping out of the labor market for retirement, but I don't think retirement rate accounts for all of the change.

I think you mean it 'does' account for people dropping out of the labor market? Retirement plans and 401ks have likely rebounded to a level where retirement-age individuals can comfortably do so, which helps to clear way for others to move up.

You think we've made the turn eh? Maybe, your mouth to God's ears. We'll see though. Here's the killers out there: Europe; war with Iran; and $5 a barrel gas (almost a certainty). Hopefully those can be navigated but we'll see. I'm seeing reports that Portgual, Italy, and Greece have technically slipped back into recession (Greece a hard recession).
Gallup is reporting unemployment using their measures went up in the last 30 days FYI.

Again, if jobs start coming in at 500K a month, and as long as we have Congress and the President from differing parties, I'll drink to that.

Frazzled wrote:You think we've made the turn eh? Maybe, your mouth to God's ears. We'll see though. Here's the killers out there: Europe; war with Iran; and $5 a barrel gas (almost a certainty). Hopefully those can be navigated but we'll see. I'm seeing reports that Portgual, Italy, and Greece have technically slipped back into recession (Greece a hard recession).
Gallup is reporting unemployment using their measures went up in the last 30 days FYI.

Okay, here's the things though:

Only 5% or fewer of US exports actually go to the Eurozone. We have a surprisingly small amount of exposure to their crises.

War with Iran... eh. 'War' would be over relatively quickly, and the Mullahs of Iran know this. Likely there'll be more Israeli-Iran cold war behaviors, but actual outright armed aggression? The US would squash that gak.

Energy prices spiking is something of a headwind, but this winter has been SO mild and energy expenditures SO much lower than usual that we have a nice windfall in seasonal savings in general that can help to spur consumption near-term.

And yeah, the PIIGS (or 'Peripherals' as they're now called) are in dire straits. Greece has been kicked out of the EU in all but name, and there's still tectonic shifts and house-cleaning to follow for Portugal and then probably Italy and Spain. But, again, unless contagion literally takes down China, the US is relatively insulated.

Only 5% or fewer of US exports actually go to the Eurozone. We have a surprisingly small amount of exposure to their crises.
***5% you might recheck that figure.

War with Iran... eh. 'War' would be over relatively quickly, and the Mullahs of Iran know this. Likely there'll be more Israeli-Iran cold war behaviors, but actual outright armed aggression? The US would squash that gak.
***$8 oil for any period of time will kill a global recovery no matter how strong it is. Expect a wave of terrorist attacks on US targets across the globe, including inside US territory if attacks occur.

Energy prices spiking is something of a headwind, but this winter has been SO mild and energy expenditures SO much lower than usual that we have a nice windfall in seasonal savings in general that can help to spur consumption near-term.
***Didn’t hurt granted. It will be a drag though.

And yeah, the PIIGS (or 'Peripherals' as they're now called) are in dire straits. Greece has been kicked out of the EU in all but name, and there's still tectonic shifts and house-cleaning to follow for Portugal and then probably Italy and Spain. But, again, unless contagion literally takes down China, the US is relatively insulated.
****Mmmm…ok…no. If all three are impacted Germany goes into a recession. Say what you want but the EU really is just Greater Deutschland/France at this point (I never consider the UK as Euro).


Hopefully you’re right. Again, the great thing about being a pessimist is that, if you’re wrong, you can still be a happy man.

Chongara is trolling, but regardless your response is bs.

And, Yes because telling people their is "only one true and good view"

There IS! It's right there for you to read whenever you want, closing your eyes and turning your back on your soul doesn't change that. The truth is there for you to see and the, bells you hear every sunday are calling you to it! The only way to not understand that truth is to wifully refuse to you. It is the WRONG choice. It is the answer to ALL THINGS in CREATION as it was handed to the CREATOR of ALL THINGS in CREATION.

It also extremely relevant to this thread! As Biccat has already so wonderfully and accurately pointed out (his point being the one I was orginally endorsing) that if these hungry people simply picked up a bible, they'd have the wisdom to not be hungry.

biccat wrote:No, the labor participation rate is based on the number of people 16 and up. There is no distinction between someone leaving the labor force due to retirement and someone leaving the labor force due to losing their job.

Therefore, the labor force participation rate does not accont for people dropping out of the labor market due to retirement.

Ah, I see. I look at the employment total in labor force net changes, so retirement would be corrected for by that means.

Please stay on-topic. That is, drop this sparkly Bible conversation.

Thanks.

Frazzled wrote:Only 5% or fewer of US exports actually go to the Eurozone. We have a surprisingly small amount of exposure to their crises.
***5% you might recheck that figure.

So I went and double checked and I was way off, actual is about 17%. I was going off of memory from what I heard Bernanke say in a Fed meeting w/Congress. I might have been thinking in terms of GDP, which would be 2% on an annualized basis, either way mine was a sloppy number.

Still, EU Exports repreenting 2% of GDP, I'm just not that worried. The real danger is risk-off mentality, but it looks like the US is finally de-coupling from Eurozone headwinds.

AAAH! *crosses fingers*

Bad Biccat. How DARE you post a picture of Al Gore. You'll summon his supporters, and NOBODY wants that!

Anyway. Greece is not anywhere near indicative of waht will happen to the USA. Greece has never been stable...

sourclams wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You think we've made the turn eh? Maybe, your mouth to God's ears. We'll see though. Here's the killers out there: Europe; war with Iran; and $5 a barrel gas (almost a certainty). Hopefully those can be navigated but we'll see. I'm seeing reports that Portgual, Italy, and Greece have technically slipped back into recession (Greece a hard recession).
Gallup is reporting unemployment using their measures went up in the last 30 days FYI.

Okay, here's the things though:

Only 5% or fewer of US exports actually go to the Eurozone. We have a surprisingly small amount of exposure to their crises.

War with Iran... eh. 'War' would be over relatively quickly, and the Mullahs of Iran know this. Likely there'll be more Israeli-Iran cold war behaviors, but actual outright armed aggression? The US would squash that gak.

Energy prices spiking is something of a headwind, but this winter has been SO mild and energy expenditures SO much lower than usual that we have a nice windfall in seasonal savings in general that can help to spur consumption near-term.

And yeah, the PIIGS (or 'Peripherals' as they're now called) are in dire straits. Greece has been kicked out of the EU in all but name, and there's still tectonic shifts and house-cleaning to follow for Portugal and then probably Italy and Spain. But, again, unless contagion literally takes down China, the US is relatively insulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States

The European Union is the single largest trading partner of the USA.

Yeah, if you combine a lot of nations in to one...

But if you combine, say, Canada and Mexico in to noe group they'd exceed the EU, those two countries combined bringing in twice as much total trade as the EU does.

sourclams wrote:
War with Iran... eh. 'War' would be over relatively quickly, and the Mullahs of Iran know this. Likely there'll be more Israeli-Iran cold war behaviors, but actual outright armed aggression? The US would squash that gak.

Two things:

1) There's no guarantee that the US could stop an armed attack by Israel, though we will certainly try so long as there is a Democrat in the White House, and most likely any foreseeable Republican (except Santorum) as well. Also, Iran would interpret anything short of shooting down incoming Israeli aircraft as complicity in the strike; and even that might not stop that interpretation. Really, there is an argument to be made if Israel decides to strike, we should help them because we lose nothing in doing so, and a successful strike becomes our best possible option.

2) The proper war against Iran would be over quickly, yes, but the aftermath would be very much like Iraq, only much worse. Theoretically we could just leave, and not worry about rebuilding, but I find that to be an unlikely outcome; and not a necessarily desirable one either.

Tom summarize, while invasion isn't on the table at the moment, air strikes very much are, and that could escalate to invasion if Iran decides to start screwing with crude shipments.

Frazzled wrote:
$8 oil for any period of time will kill a global recovery no matter how strong it is. Expect a wave of terrorist attacks on US targets across the globe, including inside US territory if attacks occur.

It would, but I doubt we would hit 8 USD gas due to war with Iran. It would definitely increase prices, but not double them, and they aren't that significant of a supplier. More importantly, you can basically guarantee any hostile action again Iran to be preceded by a large buildup of US naval assets in the gulf, possibly to the point directly escorting tankers.

Terrorism is a minor concern, economically, unless someone happens to have been planning a 9/11 scale attack, and coincidentally decides to engage the plan shortly after any air strike. That said, someone very well might start planning such an attack because of an air strike.

But still proximate events are likely to be small in size, and targeted at Israel and Europe.

Melissia wrote:Yeah, if you combine a lot of nations in to one...

But if you combine, say, Canada and Mexico in to noe group they'd exceed the EU, those two countries combined bringing in twice as much total trade as the EU does.

Canada and Mexico have relatively little economic integration compared to Europe. That is why it matters that there is a Euro crisis affecting the US trade with Europe.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't matter if Canada's economy collapsed due to some other cause.

We have this system here in Finland. In theory it is a solid idea but in practise not so much.

The problem comes when the rich notice that when they make "too much" money they start cutting their profits which leads to less economical growth.

And when wealth is distributed among the poor it leads to lazy people as they get money (even if they only get free services instead of pure money) without going anything.

So we got emplyers who don't expand their market even if market is suitable for it and on top of that we got lazy workers who produce low tax income for the goverment leading even higher taxing.

If I couldn't be an ork I would like to an american.

Kilkrazy wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States

The European Union is the single largest trading partner of the USA.

I readily admit that I was wrong on the percentage of US exports that the EU represents, but in aggregate it's still only 2.2% of GDP.

This still leaves the US economy as a whole relatively insulated from EU recession. It represents a headwind, so US economic recovery will be made more difficult, but we're still making significant forward progress.

Kilkrazy wrote:Canada and Mexico have relatively little economic integration compared to Europe. That is why it matters that there is a Euro crisis affecting the US trade with Europe.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't matter if Canada's economy collapsed due to some other cause.

No, but the American continents are still more important to the USA as as far as trading goes than Europe.

Hopefully your and Sourclams's theories won't be tested in practice.

Indeed, for Europe's sake.

For all our sakes, really.

The last thing the world needs now is for its largest integrated economy to go down the tubes.

Personally, I'd like to hear more about how a major economic meltdown in the EU wouldn't affect the USA in a serious way.

Is anyone else still trying to get over biccat's claim that life was pretty good for the poor before the welfare state? Because good God that was one of a kind crazy.

sourclams wrote:I readily admit that I was wrong on the percentage of US exports that the EU represents, but in aggregate it's still only 2.2% of GDP.

You can't really say 'only 2.2% of GDP'.

"Oh, don't worry about that, it's only $308 billion every year."

There's also the issue that exports aren't just their total GDP, but their multiplier effect through the economy, as money earned from sales overseas are spent and respent through the economy.

sebster wrote:Is anyone else still trying to get over biccat's claim that life was pretty good for the poor before the welfare state? Because good God that was one of a kind crazy.

You mean back in the days when the average poor person was nearly a foot shorter due to malnutrition, and 40 was considered a ripe old age at which to die? Yeah, he's crazy.

sebster wrote:Is anyone else still trying to get over biccat's claim that life was pretty good for the poor before the welfare state? Because good God that was one of a kind crazy.

You're right sebster. Before social security anyone who reached age 65 1/2 was sent out on the street to die in the cold.

Without unemployment insurance, losing your job was a death sentence for you and your family.

Before food stamps if you worked a low-paying job you slowly starved to death.

I'm sure in 30 years you would argue that before 2011 the sick and uninsured were left to die in hospital beds without care.

Are you going to substantiate your claim, or keep trolling?

biccat wrote:
You're right sebster. Before social security anyone who reached age 65 1/2 was sent out on the street to die in the cold.

Without unemployment insurance, losing your job was a death sentence for you and your family.

Before food stamps if you worked a low-paying job you slowly starved to death.

I'm sure in 30 years you would argue that before 2011 the sick and uninsured were left to die in hospital beds without care.

Are you going to substantiate your claim, or keep trolling?

You're really going to post what you just did, and claim the person you're responding to was trolling?

At least pretend to subtlety man.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:Is anyone else still trying to get over biccat's claim that life was pretty good for the poor before the welfare state? Because good God that was one of a kind crazy.

You're right sebster. Before social security anyone who reached age 65 1/2 was sent out on the street to die in the cold.

Without unemployment insurance, losing your job was a death sentence for you and your family.

Before food stamps if you worked a low-paying job you slowly starved to death.

I'm sure in 30 years you would argue that before 2011 the sick and uninsured were left to die in hospital beds without care.

Are you going to substantiate your claim, or keep trolling?

In the US as far as I can see the uninsured don't even get to a hospital bed unless they want to bankrupt themselves to medical bills!

The profit motive should never enter into medical decisions. In the UK I can count on recieving medical care at ANY time without having to worry about the bill. Sure I may have to wait in line sometimes but I can still get my NHS doctor to refer me to a private clinic for any procedures if I have the money and lack patience.
There is NEVER a finacial incentive for my doctor to recommend unnecessary proceedures or medication.

Sonophos wrote:In the US as far as I can see the uninsured don't even get to a hospital bed unless they want to bankrupt themselves to medical bills!

Then you're not looking hard enough.

Sonophos wrote:There is NEVER a finacial incentive for my doctor to recommend unnecessary proceedures or medication.

No, there's not. However, there is a financial incentive for your doctor to refuse to perform certain procedures or prescribe certain medications.

biccat wrote:

Sonophos wrote:There is NEVER a finacial incentive for my doctor to recommend unnecessary proceedures or medication.

No, there's not.

Are you joking?

NHS doctors are incentivized based on patient outcomes, aren't they?

biccat wrote:

Sonophos wrote:In the US as far as I can see the uninsured don't even get to a hospital bed unless they want to bankrupt themselves to medical bills!

Then you're not looking hard enough.

Sonophos wrote:There is NEVER a finacial incentive for my doctor to recommend unnecessary proceedures or medication.

No, there's not. However, there is a financial incentive for your doctor to refuse to perform certain procedures or prescribe certain medications.

Really? I watched the Poor America documentary and that seemed fairly indicitive of the state of US health care for the poor. If you lose your job through no fault of your own you lose your health insurance.

Yes, there are times when treatment and/or medication get refused by the NHS. They are predominantly cases that do not considerably limit the patient's longevity and/or cause excessive impact on thier quality of life.
The cases that get publicised the most tend to be cancer patients that want a certain exhorbitantly expensive palliative drug where NICE or the NHS trust don't view the drug as having a significant liklihood of increasing life span. In all probabilty only the VERY best private health insurance in the US would provide for these anyway and that is if the patient isn't refused insurance for a "pre-existing" condition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:

Sonophos wrote:There is NEVER a finacial incentive for my doctor to recommend unnecessary proceedures or medication.

No, there's not.

Are you joking?

Me or Biccat? Some doctors in the UK tried to pull this a couple of months ago and are now unemployed and struck off, I think one of them went to jail for a good few years. I will retract the "NEVER" and replace with "VERY RARELY".

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:

Sonophos wrote:There is NEVER a finacial incentive for my doctor to recommend unnecessary proceedures or medication.

No, there's not.

Are you joking?

Ok, maybe "never" is too broad. But generally, no, there's no "financial incentive" in JOE the same way there is an incentive in the US. The physician doesn't benefit by prescribing more procedures, tests, or medications. In fact, there's probably a tendency to under-prescribe because the financial incentives work the other way.

Sonophos wrote:Really? I watched the Poor America documentary and that seemed fairly indicitive of the state of US health care for the poor. If you lose your job through no fault of your own you lose your health insurance.

Yes, propaganda will tend to make a really good case for their own side while demonizing the other side. "Sicko" also made a great case for Cuban-style health care.

Sonophos wrote:The cases that get publicised the most tend to be cancer patients that want a certain exhorbitantly expensive palliative drug where NICE or the NHS trust don't view the drug as having a significant liklihood of increasing life span.

Damn those cancer patients for wanting a better chance at living. They shouldn't burden the rest of the taxpayers, amirite?

Sonophos wrote:In all probabilty only the VERY best private health insurance in the US would provide for these anyway

Or, you could pay for it yourself. Always an option. Well, not in JOE.

Sonophos wrote:
Me or Biccat? Some doctors in the UK tried to pull this a couple of months ago and are now unemployed and struck off, I think one of them went to jail for a good few years. I will retract the "NEVER" and replace with "VERY RARELY".

Biccat.

Malpractice law is the most pressing, but licensing is another (Yes, this is a financial incentive.) issue, then there is the obvious incentive that follows from all technical industries: I want to convince you to use my services more, so I make more money.

To reiterate: "Well, that spark plug look might wobbly, we better replace the manifold!"

Hyperbole, but the incentive is the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Ok, maybe "never" is too broad. But generally, no, there's no "financial incentive" in JOE the same way there is an incentive in the US. The physician doesn't benefit by prescribing more procedures, tests, or medications. In fact, there's probably a tendency to under-prescribe because the financial incentives work the other way.

Maybe, but I doubt that follows from the relevant risks, and I know its not been my experience with doctors that I know.

dogma wrote:then there is the obvious incentive that follows from all technical industries: I want to convince you to use my services more, so I make more money.

I was under the impression that physicians in JOE were not paid based on the services provided, but instead on the number of patients seen.

dogma wrote:To reiterate: "Well, that spark plug look might wobbly, we better replace the manifold!"

Sticking with the hyperbole, the JOE technician would replace the spark plug and send you to a specialist if you were concerned about the manifold.

Define JOE please.

It seems to me that the medical provider is logically incentivised to get as much out of those that pay, be they private persons or insured persons; insurance companies are by definition motivated to take as much in premiums as possible whilst paying out as little as possible. There are too many moral hazards in this system for my liking.

So ACTUAL film of ACTUAL people having to effectively beg for health care is only so much propaganda? Yes facts can be scewed but the BBC is not in the habit of paying people to stand around in the dark with thier kids for the sake of propaganda.

No you are not right. You are simplifying the issue. The patient through desperation finds a drug that MAY in thier mind improve thier chances but they are not experts in the feild. A clinical decision made by experts shows that the patient is wrong. THIS IS STILL A SIMPLIFICATION but still closer to the truth. Patients can appeal a decision.

Yes you can still pay for it yourself in the UK.

Sonophos wrote:Define JOE please.

Jolly Olde England.

Sonophos wrote:It seems to me that the medical provider is logically incentivised to get as much out of those that pay, be they private persons or insured persons; insurance companies are by definition motivated to take as much in premiums as possible whilst paying out as little as possible. There are too many moral hazards in this system for my liking.

Cool.

The JOE medical provider is incentivized to provide as little care as possible to the greatest number of patients at the lowest level of cost. Seems like there might be moral hazards there too.

Sonophos wrote:So ACTUAL film of ACTUAL people having to effectively beg for health care is only so much propaganda? Yes facts can be scewed but the BBC is not in the habit of paying people to stand around in the dark with thier kids for the sake of propaganda.

I didn't say it was fake, I said it was propaganda. You can create some pretty interesting arguments by selective application of facts. I don't think Michael Moore faked much of his "documentaries," I suspect that most of his shots were actual and truthful. Heck, his portrayal of Charlton Heston in Bowling was real...it was just magnificantly taken out of context.

Sonophos wrote:No you are not right. You are simplifying the issue. The patient through desperation finds a drug that MAY in thier mind improve thier chances but they are not experts in the feild. A clinical decision made by experts shows that the patient is wrong. THIS IS STILL A SIMPLIFICATION but still closer to the truth. Patients can appeal a decision.

Ah, well then, that's fair. If the government decides that I don't deserve life-saving treatment, at least there's a path to appeal the decision. To the government. Who denied my treatment in the first place. I'm sure that a bunch of experts will be able to better accomodate my preferences than I will.

The JOE medical practitioner is incentivised to provide the best patient outcomes he can. There are penalties in place for institutions that discharge a patient prematurely as well as the built in cost of keeping them too long.

Sorry but I can't remember EVER coming accross charity clinics in JOE (or Scotland; or Wales; or Northern Ireland) let alone ones that run in the middle of the night and have long queues.

The appeals proceedure is handled by disinterested parties and/or the courts. If that is the way you want to view a system with checks and balances built into it then there is little I could do to change your perspective.

Tell ya what biccat get on a plane and come take a look, oh btw you will need insurance because you don't pay UK taxes.

Sonophos wrote:The JOE medical practitioner is incentivised to provide the best patient outcomes he can. There are penalties in place for institutions that discharge a patient prematurely as well as the built in cost of keeping them too long.

You're idealizing the JOE practitioner. He responds to incentives just like everyone else.

How are the penalties for premature discharge or keeping a patient too long determined? I'd wager that they're not at the discretion of the physician. The incentive in government-run programs is to follow the rules to the letter in order to avoid punishment. If a patient's needs are contrary to the rules, the patient will lose.

Sonophos wrote:Sorry but I can't remember EVER coming accross charity clinics in JOE (or Scotland; or Wales; or Northern Ireland) let alone ones that run in the middle of the night and have long queues.

Sure you have. They're the same clinics you go to.

If you think that British hospitals and GP clinics are anything like the clinic in the aforementioned documentary, then you're crazier than I thought.

Which is saying something.

The guy who set up the emergency clinic for impoverished Americans had previously been doing the same work in a third-world country, and moved to the States to set up his project because he claimed the the conditions faced by the US poor were not dissimilar.

Anyone fancy guessing which country he was originally from?

Albatross wrote:If you think that British hospitals and GP clinics are anything like the clinic in the aforementioned documentary, then you're crazier than I thought.

If the facts implied by your comment are true - that British hospitals and GP clinics aren't open at all hours and are not required to provide services to those who can't afford to pay - then I have seriously misjudged the UK health system.

Perhaps I really am that crazy.

GP clinics are not open all hours and are only obligated to provide services to registered patients.

If you need emergency health services there are walk-in clinics and hospital AE departments.

Treatment at the point of service is free, except for prescriptions for medicines.

Kilkrazy wrote:GP clinics are not open all hours and are only obligated to provide services to registered patients.

If you need emergency health services there are walk-in clinics and hospital AE departments.

Treatment at the point of service is free, except for prescriptions for medicines.

Ah, so the key difference between charity clinics in the US and UK clinics is that in the UK you have to be on the list and come in at the right time? Oh, and it's not free.

Whatever works I suppose. I would suggest you guys look into the "charity clinics" we have here in the States. They're free, open all hours, and will service anyone.

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:If you think that British hospitals and GP clinics are anything like the clinic in the aforementioned documentary, then you're crazier than I thought.

If the facts implied by your comment are true - that British hospitals and GP clinics aren't open at all hours and are not required to provide services to those who can't afford to pay - then I have seriously misjudged the UK health system.

Perhaps I really am that crazy.

GP clinics aren't open all hours, and both hospitals and GP clinics occupy purpose-built buildings and are staffed by fully-trained medical professionals. The American emergency clinic for the poor that features in the documentary was in a gym, and was staffed by volunteers with medical experience from the National Guard, amongst other things. To imply any similarity between that and our healthcare system is insulting and extremely ignorant.

I think it's clear at this point that you have a pretty poor knowledge of the UK health system - you thought that private insurance had been abolished, for example. That's fine, of course. Why would you know anything about it? You don't live here, and don't use the service. I don't know a great deal about American healthcare. The thing is, if I don't know anything, or know very little about a subject, I don't pretend that I do. Perhaps that would be a prudent course of action for you, instead of spouting the same tired old rhetoric kindly supplied to you by the American extreme right-wing's propaganda machine.

Just a thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, GP clinics are not for medical emergencies - that's what hospital A&E departments are for. They are open 24/7/365, and will treat anyone with a pressing medical need.

In the UK, the NHS (Government) can deny coverage of your services.

In the US, the Insurance Company (private, profit driven organization) can deny coverage of your services.

I guess the question is, which is more accountable to the people that need the service?

biccat wrote:
I was under the impression that physicians in JOE were not paid based on the services provided, but instead on the number of patients seen.

They aren't, I was referring to doctors in the US.

biccat wrote:
Sticking with the hyperbole, the JOE technician would replace the spark plug and send you to a specialist if you were concerned about the manifold.

In my experience that's how it works here as well. The GP I see basically exists to write prescriptions and referrals.

biccat wrote:You're right sebster. Before social security anyone who reached age 65 1/2 was sent out on the street to die in the cold.

Without unemployment insurance, losing your job was a death sentence for you and your family.

Before food stamps if you worked a low-paying job you slowly starved to death.

So, your defence is to make up pretend claims that have nothing to do with anything anyone said?

Are you going to substantiate your claim, or keep trolling?

I already responded to you, a page before this. I guess you missed it.

Easy E wrote:In the UK, the NHS (Government) can deny coverage of your services.

In the US, the Insurance Company (private, profit driven organization) can deny coverage of your services.

I guess the question is, which is more accountable to the people that need the service?

Does the Federal Government Deny people medicare/medicaid/disability payments and money to cover procedures? All the damn time. Except they're not accountable. They've got generations of people by the curlys and I am one of them (I'm 22, I'll eventually have to deal with decades of false promises from the Government).

I wouldn't be surprised if the system collapses in the next ten years.

Stormrider wrote:
Does the Federal Government Deny people medicare/medicaid/disability payments and money to cover procedures? All the damn time. Except they're not accountable.

Since when? They're ostensibly accountable to voters, and of course can be sued.

Stormrider wrote:
They've got generations of people by the curlys and I am one of them (I'm 22, I'll eventually have to deal with decades of false promises from the Government).

Why? You're 22, you have more than enough time to start a private retirement fund if you believe SS will collapse.

I'm not sure about this idea of "false promises" either, did the government promise that SS would be infinitely sustainable?

Stormrider wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the system collapses in the next ten years.

I would be, though changes will certainly be made.

Stormrider wrote:Does the Federal Government Deny people medicare/medicaid/disability payments and money to cover procedures? All the damn time. Except they're not accountable. They've got generations of people by the curlys and I am one of them (I'm 22, I'll eventually have to deal with decades of false promises from the Government).

Huh? Not accountable. They're called elections, and there's quite a lot of media coverage in the lead up to one. I'm sure you must have heard, at least in passing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the system collapses in the next ten years.

It's worth pointing out this kind of vague doomsday mentality is not a purely American phenomenom, but it is so much worse there because so many politicians play up to it, and very few people are willing to spend the time calling them on their nonsense.

But seriously, no. The system is not going to collapse in the next ten years. Highly prosperous nations don't give up and die because there is presently no political will to set tax collection and spending to equivalent levels. I mean, feth, you had a balanced budget just a tick over a decade ago, and getting it required the lynching of exactly no rich people, and exactly no poor people to eat their own children.

And yet here you are, a decade later, pretending it's the great impossible thing, and that total systemic collapse is even slightly plausible.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:GP clinics are not open all hours and are only obligated to provide services to registered patients.

If you need emergency health services there are walk-in clinics and hospital AE departments.

Treatment at the point of service is free, except for prescriptions for medicines.

Ah, so the key difference between charity clinics in the US and UK clinics is that in the UK you have to be on the list and come in at the right time? Oh, and it's not free.

Whatever works I suppose. I would suggest you guys look into the "charity clinics" we have here in the States. They're free, open all hours, and will service anyone.

Health care in the UK is available 24/7/365 in the form of Doctor's clinics and Accident and Emergency departments. If there is a pressing need to see a Doctor in the middle of the night locum services are availble in all areas. If you can not travel to the over night clinic then an emergency Doctor can come to you.

If you have an urgent and immediate need for medical attention ambulance and hospital staff are availble ALL the time.

Prescription charges are a nominal ammount; are the same no matter the quantity or type of drug and; if you have a chronic condition you do not have to pay; If you are pregnant or for 1 year after birth you do not have to pay; if you are under 18 or in full time education you do not have to pay; if you are unemployed you do not have to pay.

Everybody can go on a doctor's list, you can be removed if you are delinquent for a number of years or smack a member of staff but your records are just held ready to go on the next list you join. The doctor's list is simply a record holding mechanism that ensures a person's medical record follows them from doctor to doctor.

Your assertion that NHS services are not free because we pay a contribution towards our prescriptions is ludicrous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:

Easy E wrote:In the UK, the NHS (Government) can deny coverage of your services.

In the US, the Insurance Company (private, profit driven organization) can deny coverage of your services.

I guess the question is, which is more accountable to the people that need the service?

Does the Federal Government Deny people medicare/medicaid/disability payments and money to cover procedures? All the damn time. Except they're not accountable. They've got generations of people by the curlys and I am one of them (I'm 22, I'll eventually have to deal with decades of false promises from the Government).

I wouldn't be surprised if the system collapses in the next ten years.

YOU ARE 22! If you don't like it do something about it and stop whining. Change the system from within it and work to make it better.

biccat wrote:
Whatever works I suppose. I would suggest you guys look into the "charity clinics" we have here in the States. They're free, open all hours, and will service anyone.

I don't know of many charity clinics that will give free prescription drugs to patients.

dogma wrote:I don't know of many charity clinics that will give free prescription drugs to patients.

I like how, outside of the GFC, medical expenses and the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US, but at the same time in biccatland you can get medical help for free. I can't decide if he's unaware that the care provided in free clinics is extremely limited and miles short of the care needed for serious conditions, or if he thinks people ignore those free clinics and go bankrupt purely out of spite, just to make America look bad.

Oh and with the NHS system employers can not pick and choose what drugs you can get. Contraception is free.

Religious organisations can not argue repression of belief because employees can get contraception. Health care decisions are secular and no employer can dictate the level of care you recieve. They can supliment it but they can never take it away.

Sonophos wrote:
Religious organisations can not argue repression of belief because employees can get contraception. Health care decisions are secular and no employer can dictate the level of care you recieve. They can supliment it but they can never take it away.

In the states contraception is pretty easy to get, its not free in many places, but it is relatively cheap. For example, my ex pays ~20 USD per month for her birth control in Minnesota.

The allowance for companies to not cover birth control is a bit silly not because everyone should have access to birth control, but because birth control is used to treat things beyond "I don't want kids."

This is addressed to anyone that thinks the assets of someone that earned it should be confiscated by the government and given to someone that didn't earn it:

When has any government ever done anything that was efficient and beneficial to the governed?

Best

All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Well, often. The issue is typically with degree.

Phanatik wrote:This is addressed to anyone that thinks the assets of someone that earned it should be confiscated by the government and given to someone that didn't earn it:

When has any government ever done anything that was efficient and beneficial to the governed?

Best

I know I'm taking the bait, and that you probably won't bother to respond, but:

The question isn't necessarily one of propriety, but of necessity. The modern state depends on taxation for revenue, and the modern state is the basis of the international system. Further, no system of government has ever not depended on taxation, or something similar to it, for revenue. And, seeing as we, as a species, seem to rather like government, that presents a sort of conundrum.

It is, as sourclams said, a question of degree. You probably know that, of course, which makes me wonder why you would use such stark terminology...

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
Does the Federal Government Deny people medicare/medicaid/disability payments and money to cover procedures? All the damn time. Except they're not accountable.

Since when? They're ostensibly accountable to voters, and of course can be sued.

Stormrider wrote:
They've got generations of people by the curlys and I am one of them (I'm 22, I'll eventually have to deal with decades of false promises from the Government).

Why? You're 22, you have more than enough time to start a private retirement fund if you believe SS will collapse.

I'm not sure about this idea of "false promises" either, did the government promise that SS would be infinitely sustainable?

Stormrider wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the system collapses in the next ten years.

I would be, though changes will certainly be made.

Is the bureaucracy accountable (you know, the people who actually write all of the regulations) ? Furthermore, are those trials free? No. They are not, on both counts. People who are already poor cannot mount much of a campaign against these organizations.

I have already made plans for a Private Retirement account, but I still have to pay FICA taxes and I not only find in abhorrent that I am having money taken from me for something that will not be around by the time I am retirement age, but that I have to at the point of being jailed if I don't.

False Promises are quite evident. Go to your average meeting involving the elderly or near retired being pandered to by politicians "guaranteeing" that their checks will continue to be paid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Does the Federal Government Deny people medicare/medicaid/disability payments and money to cover procedures? All the damn time. Except they're not accountable. They've got generations of people by the curlys and I am one of them (I'm 22, I'll eventually have to deal with decades of false promises from the Government).

Huh? Not accountable. They're called elections, and there's quite a lot of media coverage in the lead up to one. I'm sure you must have heard, at least in passing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the system collapses in the next ten years.

It's worth pointing out this kind of vague doomsday mentality is not a purely American phenomenom, but it is so much worse there because so many politicians play up to it, and very few people are willing to spend the time calling them on their nonsense.

But seriously, no. The system is not going to collapse in the next ten years. Highly prosperous nations don't give up and die because there is presently no political will to set tax collection and spending to equivalent levels. I mean, feth, you had a balanced budget just a tick over a decade ago, and getting it required the lynching of exactly no rich people, and exactly no poor people to eat their own children.

And yet here you are, a decade later, pretending it's the great impossible thing, and that total systemic collapse is even slightly plausible.

This isn't a balanced budget issue, it's a sustainability issue. Our own CBO and the actuaries of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid have projected unfunded liabilities between these programs in the $90+ Trillion dollars, and with the requirements constantly getting easier to qualify for, people dropping out of the workforce and a rapidly aging population the number is only going to increase.

Increasing taxes in this economic situation is suicidal as well. I would expect a look at the economy in a static model from someone who think Paul Krugman is all-right.

Stormrider wrote:
Is the bureaucracy accountable (you know, the people who actually write all of the regulations) ?

Yes, they can be fired for incompetence, just as any other employee. Then there's political turnover, which is important when regarding those people who actually write regulations.

Stormrider wrote:
Furthermore, are those trials free? No. They are not, on both counts. People who are already poor cannot mount much of a campaign against these organizations.

Of course they can't, the rich and powerful (there is little practical difference) won't have it.

Also, I love how similar this is to the argument for welfare.

Stormrider wrote:
I have already made plans for a Private Retirement account, but I still have to pay FICA taxes and I not only find in abhorrent that I am having money taken from me for something that will not be around by the time I am retirement age, but that I have to at the point of being jailed if I don't.

Oh no, people with more power can make people with less power do what they want, how awful.

Either way, you're conflating knowledge with belief, a common mistake, but still a mistake.

Stormrider wrote:
False Promises are quite evident. Go to your average meeting involving the elderly or near retired being pandered to by politicians "guaranteeing" that their checks will continue to be paid.

You're 22, which isn't generally considered to be "elderly". And promising that a cheque will continue is not the same as promising that the amount of the cheque will continue to be the same.

People often hear what they want to hear, not what is said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:
This isn't a balanced budget issue, it's a sustainability issue.

Do you make a habit of adopting terrible environmentalist terminology, or is this a one time thing?

Stormrider wrote:I have already made plans for a Private Retirement account, but I still have to pay FICA taxes and I not only find in abhorrent that I am having money taken from me for something that will not be around by the time I am retirement age, but that I have to at the point of being jailed if I don't.

Don't think of it as a retirement fund that is slowly being bled dry, think of it as an income transfer payment to a wealthier and more politically connected class.

The US government is caught in its lies. Remember the social contract - Social Security - was guaranteeing an income to those that survived to 65. In 1935 the life expectancy average was 61.7 Today that is 13% of the population in 1940 it was 6.8%. So around the time it was started there were 13 americans supporting 1 elderly person now we are down to about 7 supporting 1. Oh and the cost of healthcare has gone up 546% over the last 50 + years.

The theory of support is good but the reality is something different. So increase the cost and the number of people living and reduce the number of people paying and lo and behold, you have an insolvent mess. Where politicians promise the world to the retiree and expect the money to pay for it to come out of thin air.

Phanatik wrote:This is addressed to anyone that thinks the assets of someone that earned it should be confiscated by the government and given to someone that didn't earn it:

And I'll repeat for about the 50th time on this forum, taxation drawn from income is not taking something from someone. That's a piece of stupid that gets stuck in people's heads when they first take a job, and think their pay is a contract that is between them and their employer, with no input from anyone else in the world.

Once they get a bit smarter, and begin to learn that employer only exists because of the complex interactions of society, underpinned by governmental law and systems, they should begin to realise that what they're paid and what they're taxed are all part of the same system. They don't, because it's more flattering to consider themselves as victims of the evil, evil state.

sebster wrote:And I'll repeat for about the 50th time on this forum, taxation drawn from income is not taking something from someone.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum. Seriously.

You can argue for the legitimacy of taxation, whether its as a direct provision of services or as part of the social contract, that's fine. But to say that "taxation drawn from income is not taking something from someone" is facially absurd.

I suppose next you'll tell me that when the government increases taxes, my income doesn't decrease. Or when the government reduces taxes my income doesn't increase.

Stormrider wrote:This isn't a balanced budget issue, it's a sustainability issue. Our own CBO and the actuaries of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid have projected unfunded liabilities between these programs in the $90+ Trillion dollars, and with the requirements constantly getting easier to qualify for, people dropping out of the workforce and a rapidly aging population the number is only going to increase.

That $90 trillion number is the kind of thing that sounds very scary to people outside of finance and accounting, but is actually nothing of the sort.

For instance, say you buy a house. You're moving your furniture in when some guy comes running up the street and yells 'stop what you're doing! In addition to your $125,000 mortgage, you can be expected to pay $1,500 a year in utilities, and another $2,000 in repairs and maintenance every year for the next 50 years! That's another $175,000 in unfunded liabilities!'

You would look baffled at that man for a second, and then you'd reply, 'well yeah, but I'm going to earn money in every one of those years, and use that money to offset those liabilities as they become due!'

It's the same thing with the scary sounding 90 trillion figure. You'll continue earning money every year, it's presently 14 trillion and will grow, more or less, at about 3% after inflation every year.

As the payments out of the system grow then adjustments will need to be made. People paying into the system will likely have to pay more, while taxes will likely have to increase somewhat, and spending will have to be cut (you could bring defence spending down to something comparable with other developed countries and the problem would basically be solved). And you could increase the age before people are eligible for the system.

That's how system work. They hate making adaptions, and they gnash their teeth and treat each sacrifice like it's the worst thing in the world, but at the end of the day they do what's needed to avoid systemic collapse. And 95% of the time they look back ten years later and wonder what all the big fuss was about.

Increasing taxes in this economic situation is suicidal as well. I would expect a look at the economy in a static model from someone who think Paul Krugman is all-right.

The economic repercussions of increased taxes are always claimed as a self-evident truth, but it's interesting to note an example is never given* of a nation that contracted over and above the reduced aggregate demand of the taxes. Simply put, the idea that people stop working because taxes go from 30% to 35% is nonsense. That is a simple, instinctive truth that you can consider by considering your own circumstance - would you stop working because you only got to keep 65% of your income, instead of 60%?

And Krugman isn't right about everything. The beard is a terrible choice, for instance. But on the present economic model, he's pretty much bang on.



*Well, sometimes Japan in the 90s in mentioned, but that example is so non-sensical to anyone who's ever studied the Lost Decade it doesn't count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DAaddict wrote:The US government is caught in its lies. Remember the social contract - Social Security - was guaranteeing an income to those that survived to 65. In 1935 the life expectancy average was 61.7 Today that is 13% of the population in 1940 it was 6.8%. So around the time it was started there were 13 americans supporting 1 elderly person now we are down to about 7 supporting 1. Oh and the cost of healthcare has gone up 546% over the last 50 + years.

The theory of support is good but the reality is something different. So increase the cost and the number of people living and reduce the number of people paying and lo and behold, you have an insolvent mess. Where politicians promise the world to the retiree and expect the money to pay for it to come out of thin air.

I really, really don't see how a demographic shift means the government was 'caught in their lies'. That's just being silly.

You have a problem, brought on by unsustainably low taxes, or unsustainably high spending, or more likely some combination of the above... that is compounded by a demographic shift. This requires a moderated solution geared to the long term. That's all. No need to get bonkers about things.

Institutionalized mediocrity. Makes me think of how many people would be more than happy to be heat batteries for the machine overlords as long as they got their Matrix on.

Edit: Sebster said it better.

biccat wrote:This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum. Seriously.

You can argue for the legitimacy of taxation, whether its as a direct provision of services or as part of the social contract, that's fine. But to say that "taxation drawn from income is not taking something from someone" is facially absurd.

I suppose next you'll tell me that when the government increases taxes, my income doesn't decrease. Or when the government reduces taxes my income doesn't increase.

The argument isn't that people don't get impacted by tax policy - that idea is purely a product of your woeful reading effort. The point is that taxation is some external thing that comes in to interfere with the process, it is just as much a part of the process as anything else.

So, now for the 51st time, give or take, I'll go through the very simply concepts, and reach the very clear conclusion. The system we have in place, while it encourages individual incentive wherever possible, is at all times underpinned by government, in contract law, property law, employment law, provision of infrastructure and so on. As such, even though it might look like your employment is a deal purely between you and your employer, it is actually part of that greater system, and that system includes tax policy. As such, to complain as if government just came in and took your income as tax, while pretending that the income you earned in the first place was entirely due to your own personal awesomeness and unrelated to that same government system, is bonkers.

In other words, it isn't that your personal awesomeness has earned $85,650, and the government came in and took from you $19,617. It's that your interaction with the greater system has allowed you to claim $66,032.

Although your Awesomeness may convince your employer to raise your wages to match a tax increase.

sebster wrote:

The theory of support is good but the reality is something different. So increase the cost and the number of people living and reduce the number of people paying and lo and behold, you have an insolvent mess. Where politicians promise the world to the retiree and expect the money to pay for it to come out of thin air.

I really, really don't see how a demographic shift means the government was 'caught in their lies'. That's just being silly.

You have a problem, brought on by unsustainably low taxes, or unsustainably high spending, or more likely some combination of the above... that is compounded by a demographic shift. This requires a moderated solution geared to the long term. That's all. No need to get bonkers about things.

Sonophos wrote:Although your Awesomeness may convince your employer to raise your wages to match a tax increase.

If taxation isn't taking anything from you, then your employer doesn't actually give you your wage. Your wage is determined based on society's valuation of your input, and your employer has nothing to do with it.

This is a theory of labor that is consistent with communism, but not with a capitalist system.

Given that Australia isn't a communist country, I have no idea where it comes from. Maybe sebster studied economics under Castro. It certainly would explain a lot.

DAaddict wrote:
The lie is that it is unsupportable. They say it is due to mismanagement. To a degree they are right, as the money invested - through taxation- was not put aside but mixed in so when it was solvent you would have that money to draw on. The reality is if it took $12 to support one retiree in 1940 you needed to ask everyone to pay $1. With the cost of healthcare, that $12 is no about $66 and the reduced number of people paying in means you need to take in about $9.50 per person paying in. Now if you are used to paying in $1 and suddenly someone is going to hit you for $9.50. It is not going to be viewed as fulfilling a social contract, it is going to be viewed as undue taxation based on incompetence.

Just about everything I have ever read in regards to the formation of the US's Social Security program points to FDR wanted a TEMPORARY program to provide a retirement supplement to those who "lost" many years of their own ability to prepare for their retirement because of WW2.... So, what we're running into all these years down the road, is a RAW vs. RAI argument, where instead of going full "RAI" most politicians either want to severely limit or reform the program (hey they want their SS checks too), or pump more money into the program, but they all see that it is political suicide to suggest we get rid of the program altogether. I know that among many groups, it is an inherently "American thing" to be actively saving and preparing for your own retirement rather than hoping that SS will provide for you. Obviously this sort of "prepare yourself" option isn't available to the poor, but we are also seeing a larger number of people working beyond the "retirement age" in America, because in some cases they wouldn't know what to do with no work to do, etc.

IMO, SS is a completely separate issue from social welfare. Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned Fire Depts. Police and similar services as being social welfare, and to an extent I agree, though I would definitely say that more money should be sent to them to allow them to better do their jobs (and hire more people, etc.)

biccat wrote:
If taxation isn't taking anything from you, then your employer doesn't actually give you your wage. Your wage is determined based on society's valuation of your input, and your employer has nothing to do with it.

Employers aren't part of society?

The original point, going back to Sebster's post, seemed to be that what we can attribute out wage to is the 'framework', i.e. government. Which is bonkers, but hey, different realities I guess.

I believe biccat was responding to that point.

sourclams wrote:The original point, going back to Sebster's post, seemed to be that what we can attribute out wage to is the 'framework', i.e. government. Which is bonkers, but hey, different realities I guess.

I believe biccat was responding to that point.

The framework, society, is more than government.

The argument is that possession is ephemeral at best.

I'm not endorsing that position, to be clear.

dogma wrote:The framework, society, is more than government.

The argument is that possession is ephemeral at best.

Yeah, Kumbayah, etc.

Frankly this is even more bonkers than saying the government creates revenue.

The Pilgrims, Chinese wheat production in the 1970s, Cuban crop ownership, and I don't know how many more examples through history all show that socialized ownership is ultimately less productive and ergo society is worse off than privatization.

DAaddict wrote:The lie is that it is unsupportable. They say it is due to mismanagement. To a degree they are right, as the money invested - through taxation- was not put aside but mixed in so when it was solvent you would have that money to draw on. The reality is if it took $12 to support one retiree in 1940 you needed to ask everyone to pay $1. With the cost of healthcare, that $12 is no about $66 and the reduced number of people paying in means you need to take in about $9.50 per person paying in. Now if you are used to paying in $1 and suddenly someone is going to hit you for $9.50. It is not going to be viewed as fulfilling a social contract, it is going to be viewed as undue taxation based on incompetence.

Which is, again, not a lie, but a demographic shift. It's a demographic shift that's been well documented and published by government. It makes no sense to claim they've been pretending about anything at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:If taxation isn't taking anything from you, then your employer doesn't actually give you your wage. Your wage is determined based on society's valuation of your input, and your employer has nothing to do with it.

This is a theory of labor that is consistent with communism, but not with a capitalist system.

Umm, no, what I stated wasn't the labour theory of value, as argued by Marx. I wouldn't argue for such a theory, because it is a terrible, terrible theory with no redeeming features.

Instead, what I argued for was the theory of labour value, a central component of neo-classical economics. You're somewhat familiar with it, in that you quote half of it, 'your wage is determined based on society's valuation of your input'. The problem is that being entirely untrained in economics being as deliberately ignorant of the subject as you can possibly be, you completely fail to ask the other half of the question 'why is that the value given to my labour?'

This is a very interesting question, because it makes us ask why I am worth so much more than person of equal talents born in Mozambique? He is likely just as smart as I am, and almost certainly far more hard working, and yet I can command a small fortune for a wage, while he earns maybe a couple of thousand dollars.

It becomes very obvious that the difference between us comes from the systems we are in. In my system I was given some 18 years of education, if you include professional qualifications, while he was maybe given until year 6. And I work in a sophisticated economy, with a massive amount of capital, while he works in a very simple economy. These factors make my wage worth far more than his, not any inherent ability I was born with.

And it is impossible to seperate those functions from government, and as such it becomes impossible to continue to pretend that taxation is somehow seperate from the rest of the system.

And that, for those who are counting, is the 52nd time I've explained this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:The original point, going back to Sebster's post, seemed to be that what we can attribute out wage to is the 'framework', i.e. government. Which is bonkers, but hey, different realities I guess.

No, the framework is partially government. The point is that government portion is inseperable from the rest of the system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The framework, society, is more than government.

Yes,

The argument is that possession is ephemeral at best.

I'm not endorsing that position, to be clear.

No, the argument is that the system that allows you to command a high income is the very same system that takes some portion of it in tax. You can't seperate the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Frankly this is even more bonkers than saying the government creates revenue.

The Pilgrims, Chinese wheat production in the 1970s, Cuban crop ownership, and I don't know how many more examples through history all show that socialized ownership is ultimately less productive and ergo society is worse off than privatization.

No, that's just nonsense that has nothing to do with the point being made here. I'm not arguing for collectivisation, or any kind of greater socialisation. Just forget any of that nonsense. Please, seriously, just don't think about this in any kind of 'boo communism hooray capitalism' silliness.

Because what I'm saying doesn't conclude with 'and that's why everyone should earn the same'. Personal incentive is still essential to getting people to work hard. Nor does it conclude with 'and that's why the state should own all the assets', because the free movement of capital is the most efficient method we have to grow new businesses.

So you get that, right? I'm a capitalist.

It's just that I actually get what capitalism is. It isn't freedom and choices, because no matter the system you are still one person surrounded by millions of others, and your options are largely dependant upon them, just as your choices have a slight impact on everyone else. Capitalism is a system, defined by rules we made up over property laws, contract laws, businesss practices, employment standards and all the rest. It's a system just as feudalism, mercantilism, communism and all the rest were systems.

It happens to be the best system, but that doesn't mean it isn't a system.

biccat wrote:

Sonophos wrote:Although your Awesomeness may convince your employer to raise your wages to match a tax increase.

If taxation isn't taking anything from you, then your employer doesn't actually give you your wage. Your wage is determined based on society's valuation of your input, and your employer has nothing to do with it.

This is a theory of labor that is consistent with communism, but not with a capitalist system.

Given that Australia isn't a communist country, I have no idea where it comes from. Maybe sebster studied economics under Castro. It certainly would explain a lot.

The simple fact that we are paid in fiat currency rather than conch shells or salt is proof of Sebster's argument.

sourclams wrote:
Frankly this is even more bonkers than saying the government creates revenue.

In what sense? The state certainly has a role in the production of revenue under a number of governmental systems, including the one that exists throughout the West. Modern corporations could not exist without government.

sourclams wrote:
The Pilgrims, Chinese wheat production in the 1970s, Cuban crop ownership, and I don't know how many more examples through history all show that socialized ownership is ultimately less productive and ergo society is worse off than privatization.

Its not really that simple, unless you're excluding things like credit unions from social ownership, which I think is a bit dishonest. Then we can look at organizations like Mondragon that have been very successful, if not strictly socialist cooperatives.

And then we get to the issue of whether or not production is the only thing that determines whether or not society is better off. I can design a fairly productive society based on slave labor, after all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

The argument is that possession is ephemeral at best.

I'm not endorsing that position, to be clear.

No, the argument is that the system that allows you to command a high income is the very same system that takes some portion of it in tax. You can't seperate the two.

I agree with that, I was just working off the idea that taxation isn't taking something from someone.

The theory of social responsibility is something - I think - that we can all agree on.

The issue is the practical results and the extent to which a social net should exist and be supported.

1. I agree that it is a societal responsibility to care for those less fortunate.
2. It is the definition of care that we will argue about until the cow comes home. Does care include not having to have responsibility for anything? To not worry about food?
Housing? Clothing? Healthcare? This is the socialist model that stifles growth and has been proven over and over again to fail.
3. So then we can get to a granular level. Say on healthcare. We need to get down to the specifics of what is emergency care and what is frivolous personal comfort. So if someone has pneumonia, should their coverage be a societal issue? Should we collectively pay for it? Perhaps. But is someone shows up at the ER with every sniffle and ache should we as society be paying for it? I think not.

A social net is important but how inclusive the net is going to be is where we have our differences of opinion.

For my part, I would like to see a catastrophic coverage blanket that covers people to the point that they don't go bankrupt but I don't want to see a subsidized care that takes away any personal responsibility to contain costs.
I would like to see a welfare program that curtailed homelessness and starvation but not a program that incentivized people to not seek to work or improve themselves.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Sonophos wrote:Although your Awesomeness may convince your employer to raise your wages to match a tax increase.

If taxation isn't taking anything from you, then your employer doesn't actually give you your wage. Your wage is determined based on society's valuation of your input, and your employer has nothing to do with it.

This is a theory of labor that is consistent with communism, but not with a capitalist system.

Given that Australia isn't a communist country, I have no idea where it comes from. Maybe sebster studied economics under Castro. It certainly would explain a lot.

The simple fact that we are paid in fiat currency rather than conch shells or salt is proof of Sebster's argument.

What if you're paid in stock?

How does that argument support Sebster's argument. Currency is merely a medium of exchange.

So is stock. It's an artificial construct of capitalist society.

Unlike haggis.

Kilkrazy wrote:So is stock. It's an artificial construct of capitalist society.

Unlike haggis.

The first rule of Haggis Club is we don't talk about Haggis Club.

Kilkrazy wrote:So is stock. It's an artificial construct of capitalist society.

The first recorded evidence of a person being paid based on a futures-implied market value was a Samurai in feudal Japan during... I think... the 1400s.

I don't think that Samurai nor his Shogun were necessarily rampant capitalists.

What's your point?

Feudal Japan was a society.

DAaddict wrote:
A social net is important but how inclusive the net is going to be is where we have our differences of opinion.

For my part, I would like to see a catastrophic coverage blanket that covers people to the point that they don't go bankrupt but I don't want to see a subsidized care that takes away any personal responsibility to contain costs.
I would like to see a welfare program that curtailed homelessness and starvation but not a program that incentivized people to not seek to work or improve themselves.

One way of demonstrating the difficulty of the issue, from a policy perspective, is that its possible to legitimately argue that there is no distinction between either component of both the dichotomies you have presented.

Kilkrazy wrote:What's your point?

Feudal Japan was a society.

But not the Society of Jesus. And therein is the rub arrrr.

sourclams wrote:The first recorded evidence of a person being paid based on a futures-implied market value was a Samurai in feudal Japan during... I think... the 1400s.

I don't think that Samurai nor his Shogun were necessarily rampant capitalists.

And we had people paid in scrip during the mercantile era. Which was just a different kind of system that was put in place, but one still put in place by society, and including a bunch of rules that people wrongly assumed were the natural order of things.