Individual Debt to Society

[IBCoupe]

Depends. The theory of an individual's societal debt isn't one that helps us figure out where to draw a line; it helps us determine that a line ought to be drawn. I'm partial to the system that we have, especially the deductions people get for charitable donations (on the theory that it allows us to specifically direct our tax dollars to a cause of our choosing), even though I'd like to see a few more marginal tax rates set up (though I personally don't operate from the theory of societal debt - utilitarianism is more my style).

Currently, a person earning $300,000 is taxed at almost exactly the same percent as a person making $3,000,000. I don't think it would be too absurd to draw a distinction between those two individuals, do you? Chances are, a person making $3 mil. has benefited from the structure of the system to a greater degree than a person making $300k.

The theory of societal debt doesn't work out to be a math equation, but more a mission statement.

[audtatious]

Depends. The theory of an individual's societal debt isn't one that helps us figure out where to draw a line; it helps us determine that a line ought to be drawn. I'm partial to the system that we have, especially the deductions people get for charitable donations (on the theory that it allows us to specifically direct our tax dollars to a cause of our choosing), even though I'd like to see a few more marginal tax rates set up (though I personally don't operate from the theory of societal debt - utilitarianism is more my style).

OK. I agree with the charitable donations and such. I believe a lot of that is being cut out of the tax codes tho. Without having a line drawn then the conversation is worthless as each side can constantly change their stance.

Currently, a person earning $300,000 is taxed at almost exactly the same percent as a person making $3,000,000. I don't think it would be too absurd to draw a distinction between those two individuals, do you? Chances are, a person making $3 mil. has benefited from the structure of the system to a greater degree than a person making $300k.

I have no issue paying the same tax percentage as the richer person due to reaching some salary plateau. I have no issue with the richer person owning a larger, faster, more expensive car. I have no issue with them having huge homes. I have no issue with them being able to jet off to "wherever land" for weeks at a time. I work to enjoy my life the way I want to enjoy it. Being rich does not equate having a good life in the first place.

The theory of societal debt doesn't work out to be a math equation, but more a mission statement.

Then you should not hold people to a standard or equation that does not exist nor a line that has not been defined. Seems to be more "feel good" policy than anything else.

[IBCoupe]

OK. I agree with the charitable donations and such. I believe a lot of that is being cut out of the tax codes tho. Without having a line drawn then the conversation is worthless as each side can constantly change their stance.

I don't think that those deductions are disappearing. There are proposals to simplify the corporate tax structure by eliminating tax deductions and lowering rates, in order to make it easier for businesses to enter and stay in the marketplace. As far as I know, there aren't many proposals to eliminate individual tax deductions (except for the latest Republican push regarding abortion and health insurance premium deductions).

I have no issue paying the same tax percentage as the richer person due to reaching some salary plateau. I have no issue with the richer person owning a larger, faster, more expensive car. I have no issue with them having huge homes. I have no issue with them being able to jet off to "wherever land" for weeks at a time. I work to enjoy my life the way I want to enjoy it. Being rich does not equate having a good life in the first place.

I don't have an issue with them having nicer things, either. They've earned it. But, the system we have is a bit more favorable to the rich than it is the poor, and maybe they get to enjoy that structure more, and it's not out of the question to ask them to pay a bit more for it. "Societal debt" doesn't just look at an individual and the circumstances of their birth, but also at the whole of society and the way that it's set up.

Then you should not hold people to a standard or equation that does not exist nor a line that has not been defined. Seems to be more "feel good" policy than anything else.

Well, the arguments for progressive taxation from a societal debt standpoint have always seemed like a post hoc justification. It's a defensible position (which is why I have argued on its behalf since Stebo brought it up), but it seems more like a defense of the current system than it is a justification for the system being set up that way in the first place. If you look at the last paragraph I wrote above, regarding the way the system works today, you can see that illustrated: the wealth disparity only justifies a societal debt argument because the circumstances currently support that justification. I don't know that there's really a causal link between them, and I know that we haven't always had such a huge gap (though, it tended to go away when we had a much more drastic progressive tax structure), so I think that much of the societal debt argument would vanish if there wasn't such wealth inequality.

[audtatious]

I don't think that those deductions are disappearing. There are proposals to simplify the corporate tax structure by eliminating tax deductions and lowering rates, in order to make it easier for businesses to enter and stay in the marketplace. As far as I know, there aren't many proposals to eliminate individual tax deductions (except for the latest Republican push regarding abortion and health insurance premium deductions).

Maybe I heard my wife wrong as I was under the impression that deductions based on donations would be further limited in coming years. We give a lot to GoodWill-style places and use those as some of our charitable deductions, so I may stand corrected.

I don't have an issue with them having nicer things, either. They've earned it. But, the system we have is a bit more favorable to the rich than it is the poor, and maybe they get to enjoy that structure more, and it's not out of the question to ask them to pay a bit more for it. "Societal debt" doesn't just look at an individual and the circumstances of their birth, but also at the whole of society and the way that it's set up.

I don't agree. We have a "somewhat" progressive tax system as it is and we already have 46%+ not paying any Fed taxes at all. Regardless, the "structure" is there for either the rich or the poor to use equally. The rich don't have more special road privileges than the poor. Just because the rich person may have a car and the poor person has to take a bus is no excuse to punish the rich person.

Reminds me of being in school and the teacher saying "get rid of that gum unless you have enough for the whole class". It's not his gum to give out in the first place nor should the person who happens to have gum need be punished for it. If the person was smacking, blowing bubbles, etc and disturbing the class that's a different thing.

Well, the arguments for progressive taxation from a societal debt standpoint have always seemed like a post hoc justification. It's a defensible position (which is why I have argued on its behalf since Stebo brought it up), but it seems more like a defense of the current system than it is a justification for the system being set up that way in the first place. If you look at the last paragraph I wrote above, regarding the way the system works today, you can see that illustrated: the wealth disparity only justifies a societal debt argument because the circumstances currently support that justification. I don't know that there's really a causal link between them, and I know that we haven't always had such a huge gap (though, it tended to go away when we had a much more drastic progressive tax structure), so I think that much of the societal debt argument would vanish if there wasn't such wealth inequality.

[/quote]

Yet not all circumstances are the same. I would think the majority of "rich" in this country did not get it handed down to them from family, they worked and achieved instead. Someone like Paris Hilton annoys me as it was simply handed to her, yet, I don't believe it is my place to take something her family has worked hard to accumulate and distribute a portion of it to those who will historically never make it into the "rich" segment "just because" the money was handed to her. I also do not think rich people are inherently smart nor are the top of the smart persons gene pool. There are a lot of opportunity in this world for everyone and a whole lot of things to invent, do, etc. The pie size is not stagnant but can be ever growing. I don't see a need to penalize success.

[IBCoupe]

Maybe I heard my wife wrong as I was under the impression that deductions based on donations would be further limited in coming years. We give a lot to GoodWill-style places and use those as some of our charitable deductions, so I may stand corrected.

You might have heard her right. I just haven't heard of anything like that; I'll keep my ear to the ground.

I don't agree. We have a "somewhat" progressive tax system as it is and we already have 46%+ not paying any Fed taxes at all. Regardless, the "structure" is there for either the rich or the poor to use equally. The rich don't have more special road privileges than the poor. Just because the rich person may have a car and the poor person has to take a bus is no excuse to punish the rich person.

It's not about punishing. I think a big misconception about liberal thought is that, in order to be a liberal, you have to hate rich people. Really, there's no malice involved. You and a liberal would look at the same set of facts and say that society looks better upon people who own cars because owning a car gives you greater mobility and greater flexibility with your scheduling. A liberal's going to look at that difference as a sign that the system is set up in such a way that you need to have a certain amount of success already to really become successful.

Reminds me of being in school and the teacher saying "get rid of that gum unless you have enough for the whole class". It's not his gum to give out in the first place nor should the person who happens to have gum need be punished for it. If the person was smacking, blowing bubbles, etc and disturbing the class that's a different thing.

I don't think teachers say that because of a fundamental sense of fairness, and I don't think liberals necessarily have that sense of fairness, either. I think the teachers just use that as a way to keep kids from chewing gum in class. Liberals are more concerned with equality of opportunity, not equality of result. That's the difference between an American liberal and a true Marxist. And as I've written many times, American conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, they just happen to have a different measure of "equality" (and, arguably of "opportunity," too).

Yet not all circumstances are the same. I would think the majority of "rich" in this country did not get it handed down to them from family, they worked and achieved instead. Someone like Paris Hilton annoys me as it was simply handed to her, yet, I don't believe it is my place to take something her family has worked hard to accumulate and distribute a portion of it to those who will historically never make it into the "rich" segment "just because" the money was handed to her. I also do not think rich people are inherently smart nor are the top of the smart persons gene pool. There are a lot of opportunity in this world for everyone and a whole lot of things to invent, do, etc. The pie size is not stagnant but can be ever growing. I don't see a need to penalize success.

Again, it's not about penalizing success. The "societal debt" approach sees that the system is weighted towards helping those who need the help the least, and seeks to curve that aid. Let's say you have two marbles at the top of a hill. They're sitting still, but if you nudge one, it's going to start moving, and once it starts, it's going to continue moving.

You might see this as a fundamental aspect of being successful, and liberals might say that "success" requires a blend of "skill" and "chance." You happened to be the marble that got nudged. Maybe you got nudged because you made yourself into the prettiest marble, but there's still an element of chance. In either case, you both have to admit that the hill itself is designed to move those marbles that are already moving.

[audtatious]

It's not about punishing. I think a big misconception about liberal thought is that, in order to be a liberal, you have to hate rich people. Really, there's no malice involved. You and a liberal would look at the same set of facts and say that society looks better upon people who own cars because owning a car gives you greater mobility and greater flexibility with your scheduling. A liberal's going to look at that difference as a sign that the system is set up in such a way that you need to have a certain amount of success already to really become successful.

and the liberal will want to manipulate the system to allow greater success of the "poor" person at the expense of the successful person. That's pretty much what it comes down to, allowing more success for those who are not lucky enough, wise enough, or far-sighted enough to be more successful.

Some people are just bound to be poor and stupid.

I don't think teachers say that because of a fundamental sense of fairness, and I don't think liberals necessarily have that sense of fairness, either. I think the teachers just use that as a way to keep kids from chewing gum in class.

If that were the case then they would simply say "no gum is allowed" in my class so spit it out. I did have teachers do exactly that. Maybe the teachers are simply not thinking about what they are teaching when they say that, but I cannot state that as I do not know for certain.

Liberals are more concerned with equality of opportunity, not equality of result. That's the difference between an American liberal and a true Marxist. And as I've written many times, American conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, they just happen to have a different measure of "equality" (and, arguably of "opportunity," too).

Maybe that's true to you, maybe not to all. If that were the case then you should be against a large portion of the "direction" as historically it has lead to a true underclass in today's society (welfare class) without increasing more opportunity.

Again, it's not about penalizing success. The "societal debt" approach sees that the system is weighted towards helping those who need the help the least, and seeks to curve that aid. Let's say you have two marbles at the top of a hill. They're sitting still, but if you nudge one, it's going to start moving, and once it starts, it's going to continue moving.

You might see this as a fundamental aspect of being successful, and liberals might say that "success" requires a blend of "skill" and "chance." You happened to be the marble that got nudged. Maybe you got nudged because you made yourself into the prettiest marble, but there's still an element of chance. In either case, you both have to admit that the hill itself is designed to move those marbles that are already moving.

Yet it has lead to "penalization" while not resolving the rise of the lower classes. I don't simply believe that a "double down" is going to do anything but grow the class more.

[IBCoupe]

and the liberal will want to manipulate the system to allow greater success of the "poor" person at the expense of the successful person. That's pretty much what it comes down to, allowing more success for those who are not lucky enough, wise enough, or far-sighted enough to be more successful.

Some people are just bound to be poor and stupid.

Sure, which is why that's not advocacy for an absolute policy.

If that were the case then they would simply say "no gum is allowed" in my class so spit it out. I did have teachers do exactly that. Maybe the teachers are simply not thinking about what they are teaching when they say that, but I cannot state that as I do not know for certain.

Eh, I always saw it as the difference between pulling a cupcake out in the middle of class and eating it versus bringing in a batch of cupcakes for the class. Sure, there were probably teachers who absolutely wouldn't want gum in their classes under any circumstance. But I wonder if those teachers who phrase it the other way would be perfectly fine with gum if it was brought in as a gift for the whole class. In any case, I don't see that as an apt political comparison.

Maybe that's true to you, maybe not to all. If that were the case then you should be against a large portion of the "direction" as historically it has lead to a true underclass in today's society (welfare class) without increasing more opportunity.

I don't know that it has. You can argue that those policies have led to the perpetuation of the problem or that they have been ineffective at resolving them, but I don't think you can cite social welfare programs with the creation of the problem. We had inherited poverty long before the New Deal.

Yet it has lead to "penalization" while not resolving the rise of the lower classes. I don't simply believe that a "double down" is going to do anything but grow the class more.

I don't think it has led to "penalization." Increased tax rates on higher income brackets does not really penalize those individuals - they still pocket more cash than if they hadn't been so darn successful. And whether the rise of the lower classes has been abated is a matter of speculation, since we don't have an alternate universe against which to compare our policy decisions.

[audtatious]

I don't know that it has. You can argue that those policies have led to the perpetuation of the problem or that they have been ineffective at resolving them, but I don't think you can cite social welfare programs with the creation of the problem. We had inherited poverty long before the New Deal.

And we will always have some form of poverty. The question remains whether increasing money, which is supposed to lead to opportunity, is the right solution based on history of that not working in the past. In 10 years, if the welfare state has grown again, what do we do? throw more money at them?

Since this is about debt to society, why are those who are a drain on society worth more than those who succeed in said society? Seems the larger the drain on society the less wanted they would be.

I don't think it has led to "penalization." Increased tax rates on higher income brackets does not really penalize those individuals - they still pocket more cash than if they hadn't been so darn successful. And whether the rise of the lower classes has been abated is a matter of speculation, since we don't have an alternate universe against which to compare our policy decisions.

If they are paying a higher percentage more than another based on what they have worked for then they are being penalized. What if the person had all their money invested in land and not "cash", would you take land from the person to give to another individual? What about it being a huge house, take rooms away? That may sound ridiculous but money is simply something the rich person obtained, similar to other objects that have worth in the society. If the rich person has to sell off some land to pay an increase of taxes then it's relatively the same as someone taking the land from him and giving it to others because they don't have any.

Stop rolling your eyes

[IBCoupe]

Since this is about debt to society, why are those who are a drain on society worth more than those who succeed in said society? Seems the larger the drain on society the less wanted they would be.

Probably because for some kind of debt on one side of the equation should amount to some kind of credit on the other.

If they are paying a higher percentage more than another based on what they have worked for then they are being penalized.

They're paying exactly the same percentage as everyone else. Their first $X is taxed at X%. Their next $X is taxed at Y%. Their next $X is taxed at Z%. Just so happens that they keep climbing after a lot of others have stopped.

And no, I wouldn't apply it to land or houses. The difference between land or houses is that they've had to do something to get it (assuming we're not talking about inheritances) - mostly spend money.

[audtatious]

Probably because for some kind of debt on one side of the equation should amount to some kind of credit on the other.

and I disagree with that. The amount of wealth in the world is not static nor quantifiable as a set amount. If one person starts gaining more wealth it does not mean others are losing what they have simply because that other person is getting more wealthy.

And no, I wouldn't apply it to land or houses. The difference between land or houses is that they've had to do something to get it (assuming we're not talking about inheritances) - mostly spend money.

They have had to do something to get cash as well, they worked for it. Wealth is more than just cash, a large bank account, or physical money as it can be property, jewels, gold, etc. If we are talking debt to society then the debt would have to be paid in some means regardless of what it physically is, correct?

As far as inheritances, why do you think the Gov should simply have the capability of taking it away? It's not theirs to take.

[IBCoupe]

The amount of wealth in the world is not static nor quantifiable as a set amount.

You have made this argument repeatedly, and I've yet to figure out why it's necessary. I haven't argued anything of the sort.

Alternatively, the taxes collected don't have to be seen as improving only the lives of the poor. There are a great many improvements that would probably help out the poor in a way that doesn't piss you off: better schools, better roads, better supported police forces, etc.

They have had to do something to get cash as well, they worked for it. Wealth is more than just cash, a large bank account, or physical money as it can be property, jewels, gold, etc. If we are talking debt to society then the debt would have to be paid in some means regardless of what it physically is, correct?

Nah, physicality matters because that's just too darned inconvenient. It'd require government auctions. "Cash" is just numbers in an account, so it's a lot easier.

Don't roll your eyes.

As far as inheritances, why do you think the Gov should simply have the capability of taking it away? It's not theirs to take.

Because, from a certain point of view, it doesn't belong to anybody else. Arguably, you can't take your money with you, and you can't stay here with it. If the society has an interest in an equality of opportunity for all, then the recapture of unused funds upon a person's death makes sense.

[audtatious]

The amount of wealth in the world is not static nor quantifiable as a set amount.

You have made this argument repeatedly, and I've yet to figure out why it's necessary. I haven't argued anything of the sort.

Usually when I see this stance one of the main arguments is that there is only so much to go around from a monetaryresource/value perspective. If one receives then another loses it or has it taken from them. Your position "some kind of debt on one side of the equation should amount to some kind of credit on the other" is similar, thus I have brought it up a few times. Maybe you don't believe that but comments above lead me to believe you are close to it

Alternatively, the taxes collected don't have to be seen as improving only the lives of the poor. There are a great many improvements that would probably help out the poor in a way that doesn't piss you off: better schools, better roads, better supported police forces, etc.

Can you please show me where simply throwing money at the problem results in a resolution? I understand throwing money at a bad road or a broken overpass or a larger bus (assuming it's full) would help. See, my issue is not necessarily "throwing money at the poor", my issue is constantly throwing money at the same problem and expecting a different outcome without changing the rules or expectations. Yes, we can spend $30k/year per student in a ghetto but if the money does not actually increase the quality of the teachers nor increase the quality of the school itself then it will only make a minute difference. Of course, the school and teachers are only a portion of the equation as the kids, parents, and community are significant. It they don't want it and we can't change their way of thinking then we are bound to fail.

I believe in the hand-up approach. Hand-out is OK for short term until the "situation" is stabilized enough to start using the hand-up offerings. But after a set time frame you are SOL.

Nah, physicality matters because that's just too darned inconvenient. It'd require government auctions. "Cash" is just numbers in an account, so it's a lot easier.

Mandating someone pay cash when they have everything in some form of physical property is the same as taking the property itself (they would have to sell). If you are OK with the one then you should be OK with the over. Both have equal value.

Kinda reminds me of a 20/20-style news report on the death tax. They were interviewing cattle ranchers in which the ranches had been in the family for numerous generations. With one family, and new regulations, should the matriarch pass away then the Gov would demand over 50%-ish her "worth" to be paid. While, from a value figure she is worth millions of dollars, it is all in the form of land, barns, etc. They were expecting to have to shut down the farm and sell a large portion of their land to simply pay the Gov. Per the report it seems this was more the norm than anything else. Should be quite interesting to see what beef prices will be when a large number of these huge ranches close down due to "redistributing the social wealth they accumulated back to society via the Federal Gov" don't you think? Maybe they can replace them with wind farms. We don't need no stinking cows belching and causing MMGW

Because, from a certain point of view, it doesn't belong to anybody else. Arguably, you can't take your money with you, and you can't stay here with it. If the society has an interest in an equality of opportunity for all, then the recapture of unused funds upon a person's death makes sense.

You only agree because you have the view that everything is owned by the society and while people are alive they simply borrow from the whole. Again, that's a "single pie" viewpoint. If my father worked 80 hour weeks for 20 years in order to build something for me, then he should be able to give it to me as is without the Gov being involved.

[IBCoupe]

Usually when I see this stance one of the main arguments is that there is only so much to go around from a monetaryresource/value perspective. If one receives then another loses it or has it taken from them. Your position "some kind of debt on one side of the equation should amount to some kind of credit on the other" is similar, thus I have brought it up a few times. Maybe you don't believe that but comments above lead me to believe you are close to it

Well, it's good that I clarified that for you, then.

Can you please show me where simply throwing money at the problem results in a resolution? I understand throwing money at a bad road or a broken overpass or a larger bus (assuming it's full) would help. See, my issue is not necessarily "throwing money at the poor", my issue is constantly throwing money at the same problem and expecting a different outcome without changing the rules or expectations. Yes, we can spend $30k/year per student in a ghetto but if the money does not actually increase the quality of the teachers nor increase the quality of the school itself then it will only make a minute difference. Of course, the school and teachers are only a portion of the equation as the kids, parents, and community are significant. It they don't want it and we can't change their way of thinking then we are bound to fail.

Say you're being chased by an angry mob. Your pockets are filled with one-hundred dollar bills. Throwing money at your problem might solve it. Can you point out where anything I've said amounts to "throwing money" at a problem? You're taking tangential references and looking wayyyy too far into them. I challenge you to find me advocating for a policy of writing blank checks to State and local governments.

Mandating someone pay cash when they have everything in some form of physical property is the same as taking the property itself (they would have to sell). If you are OK with the one then you should be OK with the over. Both have equal value.

Except that one's easily accessible, and the other is not?

Kinda reminds me of a 20/20-style news report on the death tax.

It's the "estate tax." You got political rhetoric in my reasoned discussion!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJLDF6qZUX0[/youtube]

They were interviewing cattle ranchers in which the ranches had been in the family for numerous generations. With one family, and new regulations, should the matriarch pass away then the Gov would demand over 50%-ish her "worth" to be paid. While, from a value figure she is worth millions of dollars, it is all in the form of land, barns, etc. They were expecting to have to shut down the farm and sell a large portion of their land to simply pay the Gov. Per the report it seems this was more the norm than anything else. Should be quite interesting to see what beef prices will be when a large number of these huge ranches close down due to "redistributing the social wealth they accumulated back to society via the Federal Gov" don't you think? Maybe they can replace them with wind farms. We don't need no stinking cows belching and causing MMGW

I don't know that it's the norm, and I wouldn't trust it to be. Expose pieces don't have a tendency to illustrate "the norm" by their very nature. I'm pretty sure that estate taxes don't apply to businesses.

You only agree because you have the view that everything is owned by the society and while people are alive they simply borrow from the whole. Again, that's a "single pie" viewpoint. If my father worked 80 hour weeks for 20 years in order to build something for me, then he should be able to give it to me as is without the Gov being involved.

No, and you can tell because that completely ignores everything I've written. If your father's alive when he gives it to you, it won't be subject to the estate tax (though it won't be tax-free, either - it's still a conveyance of value).

Riddle me this: why should your father's property rights extend past his death?

[audtatious]

Say you're being chased by an angry mob. Your pockets are filled with one-hundred dollar bills. Throwing money at your problem might solve it. Can you point out where anything I've said amounts to "throwing money" at a problem? You're taking tangential references and looking wayyyy too far into them. I challenge you to find me advocating for a policy of writing blank checks to State and local governments.

I'd rather throw bullets at them.....

How else would the person who owes society for their success send in their payment for their fortune?

Except that one's easily accessible, and the other is not?

Kinda reminds me of a 20/20-style news report on the death tax.

It's the "estate tax." You got political rhetoric in my reasoned discussion!

In your opinion I would guess so. I'm out. I knew the time I wasted in this thread was going to be a waste of time as usual.

[stebo0728]

Great, I'm right there with you. Not the job of the government to fix. There are still people who are irresponsible. Now what? Despite what you think, Stebo, I'm not trying to pin you to a specific policy for the heck of it. I'm trying to pin you to a specific policy because you're criticizing specific policies with vague philosophies.

When you ask "what do we do about it?" what "we" are you referring to? It seems the only definable "we" that you could be referring to would be government. And my philosophies arent vague, at least not in my mind. Just because they can be penned on one sheet of paper, and have paper left for the restroom, that doesnt make them vague. Government butt out, end of story. Thats not vague, its just easy.

And believe it or not, Stebo, inherited poverty in the United States didn't start only a hundred years ago. This notion of a created "dependent class" you've conjured doesn't find much support in history. We've had long lines of wealthy families, and we've had long lines of impoverished families for some time now, and while it would probably be ideologically convenient for you if none of that ever existed before 1932, it just isn't the case.

Great, and how long have we been trying to fix this disparity with policy? How many government institutions have fallen trying to pick people up out a gutter they are perfectly content to stay in? No poverty didnt show up 80 years ago, if it had I am fairly sure we'd have licked it by now. Its a problem that is timeless, a problem that government will never have the power to fix, at least not without completely destroying liberty in the process.

And, just to show that I'm not dismissing you out of hand, I'll address this: the federal government mostly doesn't.

Oh, so we dont with hold money from people's pay checks to make sure they pay their taxes? We arent talking about mandating health coverage? We dont FORCEFULLY withhold money for government controlled retirement? Sorry I must have bumped my head and been dreaming for a bit there.

[stebo0728]

Alternatively, the taxes collected don't have to be seen as improving only the lives of the poor. There are a great many improvements that would probably help out the poor in a way that doesn't piss you off: better schools, better roads, better supported police forces, etc.

And do the poor not use these services just as much as the rich? Nay I think an argument could be made that the poor use these services MORE. Wealthy tend to privately educate, so they dont use public schools as much, roads may be about equal, police forces I would thing deal with poverish folks alot more so than others. Yet you expect the wealthy to pay exorbitantly more tax money for these same services?

[szh]

Alternatively, the taxes collected don't have to be seen as improving only the lives of the poor. There are a great many improvements that would probably help out the poor in a way that doesn't piss you off: better schools, better roads, better supported police forces, etc.

And do the poor not use these services just as much as the rich? Nay I think an argument could be made that the poor use these services MORE. Wealthy tend to privately educate, so they dont use public schools as much, roads may be about equal, police forces I would thing deal with poverish folks alot more so than others. Yet you expect the wealthy to pay exorbitantly more tax money for these same services?

I have been down this road (pun intended) before ... with my old thread on flat taxes.

Z

[AZhitman]

Alternatively, the taxes collected don't have to be seen as improving only the lives of the poor. There are a great many improvements that would probably help out the poor in a way that doesn't piss you off: better schools, better roads, better supported police forces, etc.

And do the poor not use these services just as much as the rich? Nay I think an argument could be made that the poor use these services MORE. Wealthy tend to privately educate, so they dont use public schools as much, roads may be about equal, police forces I would thing deal with poverish folks alot more so than others. Yet you expect the wealthy to pay exorbitantly more tax money for these same services?

Police, fire, and EMS services? VERY heavily-skewed towards the lower socioeconomic strata (both geographically and individually).

Carry on....

[IBCoupe]

When you ask "what do we do about it?" what "we" are you referring to? It seems the only definable "we" that you could be referring to would be government. And my philosophies arent vague, at least not in my mind. Just because they can be penned on one sheet of paper, and have paper left for the restroom, that doesnt make them vague. Government butt out, end of story. Thats not vague, its just easy.

"We" meaning society, Stebo. How do we make parents responsible? How do we make individuals responsible? And philosophies are vague by definition - they're a guide to actual decision-making, not a user manual.

Great, and how long have we been trying to fix this disparity with policy? How many government institutions have fallen trying to pick people up out a gutter they are perfectly content to stay in? No poverty didnt show up 80 years ago, if it had I am fairly sure we'd have licked it by now. Its a problem that is timeless, a problem that government will never have the power to fix, at least not without completely destroying liberty in the process.

Great! So we fix the policy! I'm all for making the system work better, but I'm not buying your historical revisionism

Oh, so we dont with hold money from people's pay checks to make sure they pay their taxes? We arent talking about mandating health coverage? We dont FORCEFULLY withhold money for government controlled retirement? Sorry I must have bumped my head and been dreaming for a bit there.

We do those things. But, "for the most part," it's not the Feds telling you how to live your life. Most of the guiding of your life by government is done on the State and local level. And most of the guiding of your life by any source is done by you.

[IBCoupe]

Nay I think an argument could be made that the poor use these services MORE.

Which would be why it was exactly the argument I made, Stebo. I said it would be a way to help out the poor without ONLY helping out the poor. Comprende, muchacho?

And even people without children benefit by having public schools. Unless you think society would be improved by having uneducated youths figure out what else to do with their time.

[stebo0728]

"We" meaning society, Stebo. How do we make parents responsible? How do we make individuals responsible? And philosophies are vague by definition - they're a guide to actual decision-making, not a user manual.

Ok, so we've now established "we" is society. What tools does society have at its disposal to anything about anything? Government. Thats society's only effective tool, the only tool that carries any power to enforce any will of society. So now we're back to square one, with the government trying to do something about something. My point is, this is not the intended role of government, not in my world view.

Great! So we fix the policy! I'm all for making the system work better, but I'm not buying your historical revisionism

Keep slinging poo at the wall, see if any sticks? Is that the idea? Meanwhile there's tons of poo that didnt stick all over the floor, and its starting to smell. Dont change policy, dissolve policy, put jurisdiction of these matters back on the individuals.

We do those things. But, "for the most part," it's not the Feds telling you how to live your life. Most of the guiding of your life by government is done on the State and local level. And most of the guiding of your life by any source is done by you.

Welcome to patternization, and the wonderful world of precedent. Something I know you are quite familiar with. Yes your next argument will be "I cant tell you A or B wont happen in the future...". The fact remains, government mandates will only get worse over time. People in general will continue to get lazier and lazier, giving up more and more of their responsibilities to the government, and the government will be there to pick them up, and screw them some more.

[IBCoupe]

I reject the notion that society can only act through government. That sure is a convenient tool, but there are others at their disposal. This website, right here, the forum we're posting on, is a function of society. As far as I know, government didn't mandate its creation or our participation. It took government resources to develop the internet, individual ingenuity to develop webforums, Greg's (correct me, if I'm wrong) ingenuity to start the website, and our own initiative to go ahead and contribute to it. That's society. A collection of individuals working to further a collective benefit: an online resource for cars in general, but Datsuns in particular.

So, Stebo, how do parents become more responsible? What needs to be done that isn't already? If the solution to our ills is that parents and individuals start being responsible, how does that happen?

And, in anticipation of your inevitable response: if we eliminate government altogether, and we still have those same societal ills, what then?

[stebo0728]

My point was not that society doesnt have OTHER tools, but government is the only effective one to achieve any goal that any particular segment of said society may consider uncomfrotable. Sure this forum is a societal outlet, but what is it accomplishing? It affects each individual here in a dynamic way, but that affect is diluted to less than neglegable when considering society as a whole. Furthermore, say we come to some agreeable notion, something that we must demand others to do to improve society. How then does it happen? How do we force our will on others, other than government? You're not gonna find a world where everyone just decides to do whats best for society. We dont work that way. Rules have to be enforced or we are left to the disposal of anyone who might decide to break the rule. We are not a colony based organism, we dont function as a greater entity, we function as individuals, thats all we can do. Anything to be made of society has to be encouraged on the individual level. The cold hard fact is, to make others more responsible is going to have to be enforced, not by positive pressure of law, but by negative pressure. Not by forcing an action, but by withholding benefactory action when an individual fails in their individual responsibilities.

You seem to not be getting what I'm saying, and perhaps thats my fault. My point is not that certain interventions are a bad idea, but that the government is not the forum for them. The government is not the forum for them because the government is the only entity that we condone using force to accomplish its goals. Philanthropy is not necessarily a bad thing, government sanctioned philanthropy is. Plunder will never be a tenable solution to the ails of our society, nah, they actually perpetuate our ails, and create more of their own.

And I am not an anarchist, I never claim that we get rid of government completely. Government has its place, but government seems to be the current "snake oil" of our day. Throw it at any problem we may have and that'll fix it. As I stated in other threads, the problem with progressivism, is that you create a system of plunderer/looter, and you create a reason for political fighting based solely on who controls the plunder bot. We will never prosper as long as we are constantly jockying to control who gets plundered, and who gets supplemented, and to what extents.

[IBCoupe]

It looks like you missed all of my points. The first one, I'll just say we've got a fundamental disagreement, and if you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge, let alone rebut my example, then I'm going to go ahead and mark you as "too far gone."

And I never ever suggested that you have advocated for (or would even want) a world without any government. I'm simply trying to get you to answer a very simple question, that I've been trying to get you to answer since the beginning of this thread.

[stebo0728]

But I have answered it repeatedly. You are just incapable of comprehending my answer as an answer. You asked what to do. I said nothing. Question answered. Set the laws up where life, liberty, and private property are respected first and foremost, and let individuals find their own path, do their betterment or their detriment makes no difference to law.

[IBCoupe]

Right, and so the the answer to the obvious follow-up that I HAVE asked is?

[audtatious]

Right, and so the the answer to the obvious follow-up that I HAVE asked is?

Would you like fries with that burger?

[IBCoupe]

Actually, yes. That sounds absolutely delightful.

[audtatious]

I just finished supper. Applebee's Classic Clubhouse Grille with fries

"Toasted just right to bring out a hint of sweetness and piled high with Virginia ham, shaved turkey, melted cheddar and Jack cheeses with Applewood smoked bacon. Lettuce, tomato, mayo and a drizzle of our signature honey BBQ sauce finish off this favorite."

[IBCoupe]

You looked that up, right? 'Cause memorizing the menu is a little fat.