The Nature of Taxes

[HashiriyaS14]

There has been a lot of discussion on this topic, directly and indirectly, in a number of threads on here since the "Joe the Plumber" incident.

I thought it would be advantageous to have a thread dedicated to discussing what the purposes of taxes are, what they ought to be, and related issues.

To start it off, I was reading a "New Yorker" article this morning by Hendrik Hertzberg and came across this statement:

Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

Article here: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/...zberg

The article points out, in that blurb, something that we all know but that isn't always on the surface of our minds when talking about the subject. ALL taxes are re-distributive in nature.

I can think of few Americans who would advocate ZERO re-distributive taxation, as that would yield a nation with no national defense capabilities, public schools, highways, or law enforcement.

Some things, like infrastructure, defense, and certain law enforcement are indisputably best provided for by the government rather than by private enterprise, although we can certainly argue as to the extent (i.e. I'm a military privatization hawk).

The question, then, is often where to draw the line, what facets of society are best provided for by private rather than public entities and why.

The best statement in that article, IMO, is the one wherein the author states that:

"But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support"

To what extent do people agree that, since the wealthy have more to lose should society unfold, they have a greater obligation to fund it's stability?

I think that this is a very convincing way to word this argument, and it is the principle that lies behind my assertion in other threads that the wealthy have an interest in avoiding the creation of a permanent underclass, purely to preserve their own interests, and thus they should be prepared to "pony up" to create societal safety nets to avoid creating said underclass as a "cost of doing business".

[WDRacing]

For us simple minded folk, is it a question of whether we believe the people that make more money, say 150+ annual, should pay a larger percentage in taxes?

If so, I believe a stern no is in order. Flat tax ftw IMO. Flat is fair...

I say this because I've been a working class dude my whole life, but will be coming into a larger tax bracket here in a few years. All through lots of hard work and long hours of education. Education attained while juggling deployments, raising children and dodging bullets. Should I pay more...hell no, I've paid my whole life.

I don't buy into this whole, having a larger stake in the economy BS. How does me making a good living have anything to do with the housing crisis, the bazillion dollar Middle East debacle etc...etc.

Flat tax...

[Jesda]

I think that this is a very convincing way to word this argument, and it is the principle that lies behind my assertion in other threads that the wealthy have an interest in avoiding the creation of a permanent underclass, purely to preserve their own interests, and thus they should be prepared to "pony up" to create societal safety nets to avoid creating said underclass as a "cost of doing business".

This goes to your belief that "class" is a permanent state. You might as well have an Indian caste system.

Again, the examples I've been raised with are those of people with nothing who created something, and I believe millions of current and past immigrants would agree. Your underlying assertion is that being poor is a condition created by successful people, which is the antithesis of American ideals.

Being poor is a self-inflicted temporary economic illness caused by a short-term lack of opportunity or poor personal decisions. This is like claiming someone's Chevy broke down because someone else's Dodge kept running.

Wealth is temporary too, btw, if one isn't careful.

[HashiriyaS14]

I don't buy into this whole, having a larger stake in the economy BS. How does me making a good living have anything to do with the housing crisis, the bazillion dollar Middle East debacle etc...etc.

Well, in theory, someone with $100 million in assets has more to lose than someone with $5,000 in assets.

Thus, that richer person should be willing (again, in this theory) to pay more in taxes in order to have a strong national defense, well-regulated markets, effective law enforcement, et cetera. They would know that without those things, they would stand to lose a great deal indeed, much more than the poorer person.

This is also why, IMO, the richer person has an interest in providing certain societal safety nets for the poor. If a resentful underclass is created, an underclass that decides that it isn't in their best interest to work within the system, they could make life very difficult for the higher classes. Crime would rise, respect for property and success would plummet, and you would be on the verge of either a political or violent revolution. In this situation, the wealthy would have very much to lose indeed. This is what has occurred with countless "classed" societies throughout history.

[Jesda]

Well, in theory, someone with $100 million in assets has more to lose than someone with $5,000 in assets.

In this situation, the wealthy would have very much to lose indeed. This is what has occurred with countless "classed" societies throughout history.

You treat "the poor" like legless cripples. Being poor or rich isn't permanent. Historically, we had societies that perpetuated the notion of unchangeable classes. You were born into your place in life.

This isn't true of America, unless you buy into the belief and allow yourself to fail.

[HashiriyaS14]

This goes to your belief that "class" is a permanent state. You might as well have an Indian caste system.

Again, the examples I've been raised with are those of people with nothing who created something, and I believe millions of current and past immigrants would agree. Your underlying assertion is that being poor is a condition created by successful people, which is the antithesis of American ideals.

If I have created the perception that I believe "class" is permanent and that upward mobility is impossible, I have mis-stated my point.

In a pure meritocracy, certain people are not going to be able to compete and win with any regularity. This is largely the product of genetics, humans aren't born intellectually equal, not even often intellectually comparable, in my opinion. These people may well be born into wealthy families, stupidity is not somehow a unique affliction of the poor. Those of lesser capabilities born into situations with fewer opportunities, however, will be less likely to advance their situation than people with greater capabilities in similar situations.

My assertion is not that the poor are poor because the rich are rich. My assertion is that intelligence varies enormously betwixt humans and those at the bottom of the ladder are wholly incapable of succeeding in a meritocracy because those who are better equipped will generally eat their lunch.

Once their lunch has been eaten a few dozen times, they will likely become disenfranchised with the system unless there are certain limits on how far they can fall. This disenfranchisement is singularly dangerous to the rest of society, the contingent that is able to succeed or at least compete.

I'm not talking about immigrants and I'm not talking about those born into poor circumstances. It's indisputable that intelligent and hardworking people in those circumstances can and do succeed brilliantly.

I'm not sure how to say it any plainer than this: I'm talking about the unintelligent, people who lack the ability to compete with those who are better "equipped".

Dumb people will make calamity and misery for themselves over and over and over again. In our inter-connected society, this also means that they will make calamity and misery for the rest of us. We need to protect them from calamity and misery, to a certain extent, so that we may also protect ourselves.

[smockers83]

The purpose/effects of taxes is four-fold. First, and the most widely understood, they are a form of revenue for public goods such as public safety, parks, schools, roads, etc. Second, they are a form of repricing to encourage or discourage certain transactions. Here in the US, alcohol and tobacco are taxed to discourage their use, especially tobacco these days. Taxes on them keep going up. In Europe, taxes on gasoline are astronomical to encourage them to use more efficient forms of transportation, whether that be smaller, more efficient cars, public transportation, or even bikes. Third, its a form of redistribution of wealth which, in today's world is welfare. In the old days, it used to be the other way around in which the rich were supported by the poor (Robin Hood). The final purpose is representation. Governments that directly tax citizens makes them more accountable than one that is indirectly taxing (didn't know that one until just now, but I'm taking it with a grain of salt).

Taxes do, however, impose an economic cost in a perfectly competitive market. Some of that cost is redistributed back out as a public good. A zero-redistributive taxation policy wouldn't yield a country without public goods. For zero-redistribution to occur, there cannot be a redistribution of wealth which means not having a progressive/regressive tax system, not having welfare programs of any type, and no tax breaks of any kind. Public goods aren't a redistribution of wealth.

[Jesda]

Dumb people will make calamity and misery for themselves over and over and over again.

And -this- is how you perpetuate their decisions. You reward them. You are doing those in need no favor by forcing 'altruism' on the rest of society.

Its one thing for a community to pool resources together to provide basic services: roads, local schools, utilities, protection/defense.

Its another to use a progressive tax system to punish success and develop programs that perpetuate misery with incentives. Large, sweeping federal programs like those encouraged by Democrats and Republicans tend to cost more and do less.

Wealth is not redistributed. It is created. As an economy grows and develops, opportunities become more available to those who lack them. In the US, we went from farming to child labor to a sophisticated information society. This came about not because we stole from the rich and gave to the poor. This came about because we allowed firms to be created, compete, and grow. Their growth is a free-market version of the "redistribution" of wealth, one that is done by accident, by choice, and without the government stealing/giving and introducing stifling inefficiencies.

Invisible hand, etc. But you've heard all this before in your econ classes.

[HashiriyaS14]

And -this- is how you perpetuate their decisions. You reward them. You are doing those in need no favor by forcing 'altruism' on the rest of society.

Its one thing for a community to pool resources together to provide basic services: roads, local schools, utilities, protection/defense.

Its another to use a progressive tax system to punish success and develop programs that perpetuate misery with incentives.

Okay, so then that begs the question: "What DO we do about it?"

I'm asserting that there's a certain (sizable) contingent of humanity that is too stupid to help themselves. If left to their own devices they will ultimately destroy themselves, but not without first inflicting a nasty wound on the rest of society.

We can either be in the business of saving them from themselves, which is NOT "fair" to us but *does* prevent the problem, or we can not save them from themselves and let them do harm to us.

I suppose I'm unclear as to what you're arguing. Are you arguing that there are NOT, in fact, people who are too stupid to succeed in a meritocracy? Are you arguing that there are but that you don't think they can do any damage to the rest of society? Are you arguing that they can but that we should just tolerate it on principle because to prevent it with safety nets is unfair?

We've had this discussion across a couple threads now, and I'm still not sure where you stand on it. I think that up until now you thought I was talking about the "disadvantaged" (materially) rather than the "intellectually lacking", which admittedly might have provided for some confusion.

[Jesda]

Okay, so then that begs the question: "What DO we do about it?"

There is no "we". There is "you" and those who believe, like you, that something should be done.

You can give to charities.You can start a foundation.You can work in a job training facility as an educator and help the unemployed learn computer skills or help write resumes.You can do volunteer work for your communty.

But you cannot put a gun to my head and force me to support your version of government-mandated altruism. Well, you can, but you shouldn't. A moral/social obligation ceases to become just when you force others into it.

Our point of disagreement isn't that some of the poor need assistance. Our point of disagreement is that you believe you have the right to take from me to achieve your social agenda. You are threatening my assets in the name of the public good. Road to hell... good intentions...

[szh]

Here is how I want it done: zer...ncept.



Z

[NY94J30]

What consideration should be given to those who are unable to compete in society, e.g., the mentally ill, aged and infirm? Does government have an obligation if private charity fails them?

It seems to me that redistribution of assets is a necessary byproduct of society. Although I agree absolutely that the notion of commonwealth has undergone mission creep.

[HashiriyaS14]

There is no "we". There is "you" and those who believe, like you, that something should be done.

You can give to charities.You can start a foundation.You can work in a job training facility as an educator and help the unemployed learn computer skills or help write resumes.You can do volunteer work for your communty.

But you cannot put a gun to my head and force me to support your version of government-mandated altruism. Well, you can, but you shouldn't. A moral/social obligation ceases to become just when you force others into it.

Our point of disagreement isn't that some of the poor need assistance. Our point of disagreement is that you believe you have the right to take from me to achieve your social agenda. You are threatening my assets in the name of the public good. Road to hell... good intentions...

This doesn't really answer the question.

Firstly, I thought I had established that I'm not talking about "the poor" per se, I'm talking about "stupid people", so for the sake of simplicity, let's just call them that, however impolite it may be.

What you APPEAR to be arguing now (correct me if I'm wrong), is that you are comfortable with each person addressing this problem through their own individual actions rather than addressing the problem via some majority consensus and collective action, correct?

For this to be effective, you have to trust that people other than yourself are forward-thinking enough to actually do something about the problem, right?

I mean, that COULD be the case, it might work, who knows. I'm not going to discount the power of internally-motivated people working through their communities.

But what if it doesn't work? What if it isn't enough? This can apply to almost anything.

At what point do we decide that people just don't know what's best for themselves? Never?

You're going to argue that what is best for each person on a micro level will somehow sort out to be what is best for society as a whole EVERY time? Sooner or later you're going to run into an issue wherein what is best for individual on the micro level will lead to ruin for society as a whole. At what point do you just start deciding for people?

I mean, take the Second World War, or any draft for that matter. Drafts exist because people won't do what is necessary unless they're forced to. A tax is like a draft. You don't ever WANT to institute one, but it is undeniable that sometimes you must.

Are you suggesting that there are NEVER situations wherein there might be some circumstance so dire that the leadership is justified in saying "you have to contribute to fixing this"?

[WDRacing]

I'm just gonna let Jesda post for me in this thread...

He expresses what I'm thinking far better then I can communicate. Taking from the rich doesn't lead to anything but pissing off the people that HAVE DONE something to get where they are. I've made mucho bad decisions in life, been to jail and I'm back on my feet and working towards a progressively better future. So it's all about what we make of it. I don't wanna hear people complain about not having a chance, or being kept down by the man.

BTW, I'm talking about people making 100k to 250K annual, not the people with 100 million in the bank. I'm talking about the average Joe that busted his balls and has finally succeeded in life...that dude doesn't deserve to pay more just because he managed to do well.

If the Country doesn't have enough money to account for public education and the aforementioned important programs, then it needs to quit spending, NOT increase taxes. Need more money for Law Enforcement? How about not giving a crap whats on Mars until we can implement a plan that allows for it. How about asking us what we want our money spent on...bet nobody gives a crap about Mars or 3/4 of the other space exploration going on right now. I'm not saying stop, I'm saying rethink and re-plan after we can establish that we're fiscally responsible. Because right now we're just hemorrhaging money.

WD

[szh]

For us simple minded folk, is it a question of whether we believe the people that make more money, say 150+ annual, should pay a larger percentage in taxes?

If so, I believe a stern no is in order. Flat tax ftw IMO. Flat is fair...

I agree, as long as we are on the same page: "flat tax percentage", and not an absolute fixed amount per person (which would be way better, but highly unlikely!).

I say this because I've been a working class dude my whole life, but will be coming into a larger tax bracket here in a few years. All through lots of hard work and long hours of education. Education attained while juggling deployments, raising children and dodging bullets. Should I pay more...hell no, I've paid my whole life.

I am with you on this issue too! I graduated from college with $50 in my bank account, no family to bail me out, a $1000 personal loan from a bank to buy clothes (yeah, I could not show to work in jeans ... I thumb my nose at the Sarah Palin haters for spending money on her wardrobe) and put down a payment on a cheap car to get to work, and college loans up the wazoo.

Over the past 30 years of hard work, I have reached the point where I have no outstanding debt except my mortgage. Both cars are paid for, all credit cards are used only to avoid carrying cash, no personal loans, etc.

That is the American dream I worked hard for. And if you work hard, then you should be allowed to reap the benefits in later years. Not be made to feel guilty about "not paying our fair share".

Z

[WDRacing]

I hear ya Z, I make the final payments on everything in December. Cept for the mortgage of course...

I won't owe anyone crap, financial freedom FTW. Granted, I only have a 95 240SX, 89 K5 Blazer and the wifes 05 Endeavor. But they are all MINE!!! I'll be paying cash from here on out, or simply not buying it. I've gone without for a long time, but it's all gonna worth it next year.

[AZhitman]

This goes to your belief that "class" is a permanent state. You might as well have an Indian caste system.

Again, the examples I've been raised with are those of people with nothing who created something, and I believe millions of current and past immigrants would agree. Your underlying assertion is that being poor is a condition created by successful people, which is the antithesis of American ideals.

Being poor is a self-inflicted temporary economic illness caused by a short-term lack of opportunity or poor personal decisions. This is like claiming someone's Chevy broke down because someone else's Dodge kept running.

Wealth is temporary too, btw, if one isn't careful.

Jesda, you amaze me sometimes. How you're not more important than you are is beyond me.

[Jesda]

This doesn't really answer the question.

I'm surprised that my argument seems like anything new to you. Its nothing new, just the usual Rand/Friedman type libertarian argument that's been repeated for the past century.

Your agenda is simple. You want to use the government to force me and others to jump on your socioeconomic agenda.

I strongly disfavor that.

Whatever you want to do for the poor, the retarded, the ignorant, the stupid, whatever... its your agenda. Do it. Find others to join you. Sell your agenda to the willing.

But leave me out, and if I opt out don't use the government to force me against my will. There is no altruism in theft. If you donate a million dollars to fight AIDS but you got the money by robbing unwilling people, that's hardly a good deed.

[AZhitman]

In our inter-connected society, this also means that they will make calamity and misery for the rest of us. We need to protect them from calamity and misery, to a certain extent, so that we may also protect ourselves.

This is the part I have a hard time swallowing.

And I think it's because many people have a micro, rather than a macro, view of human history.

There was a time when rape was commonplace amongst humans. We've "evolved" beyond that, at least on a social level. That's an extreme example, but serves the purpose here.

There was a time when the defective and deficient were taken to a mountaintop to die. Barbaric in our view, but it protected those societies and allowed them to focus on growth. Again, we've "evolved".

I have difficulty accepting that an entire class of people (let's call them the "Stupids") can, by their behavior, somehow "threaten" my way of life to the extent that I need to effectively throw money at them in order to protect myself. That's like extortion, gangland-style.

I have a better idea - Quit with the damn "fairness" nonsense. Quit calling addictions a "disease". Quit attributing criminal decisions to loosely-related causes. Quit opposing profiling in pursuit of PC. Quit fabricating excuses for idiocy. Quit pandering to the criminal element. Quit marginalizing those who stand up for common decency. Quit glamorizing destructive and unproductive behavior.

An entire generation of people may have to be "carried off to the mountaintop" (figuratively speaking), but I'll be damned if I'll comply with a State-mandated extortion scam simply to protect me from the "Stupids".

[HashiriyaS14]

I'm surprised that my argument seems like anything new to you. Its nothing new, just the usual Rand/Friedman type libertarian argument that's been repeated for the past century.

Your agenda is simple. You want to use the government to force me and others to jump on your socioeconomic agenda.

I strongly disfavor that.

Whatever you want to do for the poor, the retarded, the ignorant, the stupid, whatever... its your agenda. Do it. Find others to join you. Sell your agenda to the willing.

But leave me out, and if I opt out don't use the government to force me against my will. There is no altruism in theft. If you donate a million dollars to fight AIDS but you got the money by robbing unwilling people, that's hardly a good deed.

It seems "new" because we're quite obviously having two different conversations.

I'm trying to see if you believe there is ANY situation so dire wherein it justifies the government deciding FOR the people, against their will. I gave the example of a draft.

You can either agree or disagree that such situations exist.

That would be a "yes" or a "no". Any other answer "doesn't really answer the question".

Just so there's no secrets, I made this thread to bait you into this conversation

You have, directly and indirectly, argued that it is NEVER justified (as per the principles of Libertarianism), no matter how dire the situation, for a government to override the will of the individual for purposes of ensuring the greater good. Maybe you didn't realize that's what we were talking about, but that IS what you have asserted, in multiple contexts, time and time again.

I believe that this is an unrealistic position and one that does no favors to Libertarianism as it places it in a kind of fantasy world where no flexibility exists. I am trying to force you into conceding to reality.

I am trying to illustrate that there ARE situations where such subjugation of the individual IS absolutely necessary, such as a draft for a war wherein the future of the free world is at stake.

If you are willing to admit the above is true, and I reckon you are, then you must also concede that there would be certain other situations wherein the same would be true, and that we are only arguing over "where to draw the line".

Admitting that it is subjective is not the same as endorsing a 10% redistributive tax from the wealthy to buy plasma TV's for welfare recipients. It's OKAY to argue about where to draw the line, but it's not okay to place all of Libertarianism in some kind of "fantasy land" because you're uncomfortable with the possibility of generating a "slippery slope" environment.

To do so, to not cede certain things to reality and to be unwilling to scrap it out in the fray of real-world subjective debate is to doom Libertarianism to eternal damnation in the land of extremist political theory.

[Jesda]

You have, directly and indirectly, argued that it is NEVER justified (as per the principles of Libertarianism), no matter how dire the situation, for a government to override the will of the individual for purposes of ensuring the greater good.

No, I didn't say that (which nullifies your otherwise well-written response). Even in this thread, I mentioned the role of government in providing defense and a few basic services.

In other threads I've referred to government as a necessary evil, comparing it to fire, which can be utilized very carefully to do good. And I said before that simply because it can do good doesn't mean you set everything on fire expecting a positive result.

Powerful, dangerous things can be carefully used to do what has to be done. I don't like fire, but I appreciate cooked food and heat. I compare big-and-bigger-government types to pyromaniacs, so enamored with pretty colors and heat that they're willing to burn down the Redwood National Forest because it feels good.

What you are suggesting is using the federal government to do charity work that should and could be done privately. You aren't seeking to provide services to all taxpayers. You're seeking to prop up an entire segment of society by taking money from the unwilling.

Now this is a thread I enjoy!

[szh]

I hear ya Z, I make the final payments on everything in December. Cept for the mortgage of course...

I won't owe anyone crap, financial freedom FTW. Granted, I only have a 95 240SX, 89 K5 Blazer and the wifes 05 Endeavor. But they are all MINE!!! I'll be paying cash from here on out, or simply not buying it. I've gone without for a long time, but it's all gonna worth it next year.

Way to go!!

Z

[HashiriyaS14]

No, I didn't say that (which nullifies your otherwise well-written response). Even in this thread, I mentioned the role of government in providing defense and a few basic services.

In other threads I've referred to government as a necessary evil, comparing it to fire, which can be utilized very carefully to do good. And I said before that simply because it can do good doesn't mean you set everything on fire expecting a positive result.

Powerful, dangerous things can be carefully used to do what has to be done. I don't like fire, but I appreciate cooked food and heat. I compare big-and-bigger-government types to pyromaniacs, so enamored with pretty colors and heat that they're willing to burn down the Redwood National Forest because it feels good.

What you are suggesting is using the federal government to do charity work that should and could be done privately. You aren't seeking to provide services to all taxpayers. You're seeking to prop up an entire segment of society by taking money from the unwilling.

This last paragraph of yours explains why we had a misunderstanding.

I'm not really suggesting anything, I was just trying to construct a hypothetical situation wherein imminent peril is posed to ALL of society by something other than armed conflict with another nation.

I was endeavoring to construct a hypothetical example wherein an "unfair" redistributive tax would somehow save all of society from imminent destruction (however improbable and wacky that fictional situation might be).

You gave responses that made it sound like, even in that fictional situation, you would let the world burn to the ground on principle.

Now I'm pretty sure that's not what you were saying.

Is this making any sense? I was constructing a hypothetical that was designed to be a situation wherein you or any sane person would be forced to abandon what is otherwise a very sensible and correct conviction. I did this to illustrate that this line DOES exist, and that it exists in different places for different people and that all anyone is ever doing is arguing over where it lies, not that it does or doesn't exist at all.

[smockers83]

In terms of the poor, taxes should be used to create a floor in which the government's society cannot go past in terms of poverty. However, this should only be used in the short-run, the very short-run depending on your perspective. The best way to drive up the poor is direct investment in them, not with welfare to prop them up. A government investing in its people is the most efficient and economical way of raising society. Create programs to develop skills of the poor or to have them learn new skills, some sort of job education, but give them a variety of choices so they can choose which skills to pursue so that the government isn't choosing which segment of the economy they enter. With the little bit of money than can be spent on each head, the government will receive a huge return on that as well as society and the economy. You cannot simply prop up the poor with welfare, you have to give them the opportunity to succeed at something by investing in them. The poor, with generally poor educations, have the most room to grow hence a large economical return on this segment of the population whereas someone who has graduated college can only learn so much more through the government investing in them through universities, which is a lot more expensive.

There's always at least 10% of the the economy that isn't utilized in terms of the poor. If you give them access to the economy in terms of jobs and money to spend, the economy will in turn see some substantial growth by just raising up this part of society.

[hsckris]

I was endeavoring to construct a hypothetical example wherein an "unfair" redistributive tax would somehow save all of society from imminent destruction (however improbable and wacky that fictional situation might be).

You gave responses that made it sound like, even in that fictional situation, you would let the world burn to the ground on principle.

Now I'm pretty sure that's not what you were saying.

I'm not trying to speak for Jesda, but IMO the problem with not letting them burn to the ground so to speak is where do you draw the line. I agree that there is a certain number of people who are unable to support themselves for legitimate reasons, such as disability or illness. In those situations I'm not opposed to government assistance.

However, helping people with a lack of merit is another matter all together. There really is a slippery slope here, as is evident from the current state of the welfare system. People learn that they don't have to succeed, and the government will give them a check and pay for their groceries (food stamps, wic, etc). Then they begin to do things JUST to cheat the system -- using their merit in exactly the opposite way it was intended. IMO if they are smart enough to cheat the system, they are smart enough to get a job & support themselves. I have seen this first hand on MANY an occassion, so don't give me that "its not very common" or "it doesn't happen." From what I have seen, the more assistance you try to provide, the more widespread this problem becomes.

I, for one, do not approve of my tax money supporting people who intentionally choose to be dead beats and leech off of ma gov't. Does that mean everyone has to 'burn'? No. But society is a much better support system than the government, at the least it is has a greater degree of accountability for the recipients of aid. And, as I said, I have no problem with helping those who have legitimate needs, where lacking merit is not a legitimate need.

[HashiriyaS14]

I'm not trying to speak for Jesda, but IMO the problem with not letting them burn to the ground so to speak is where do you draw the line.

Ok, fair enough. I can see where this is going already though....

I agree that there is a certain number of people who are unable to support themselves for legitimate reasons, such as disability or illness. In those situations I'm not opposed to government assistance.

Ah Ha. As I suspected. So this is where YOU draw the line.

Maybe I draw it somewhere else, and Jesda probably draws it somewhere else even.

In fact, I bet every American draws it in a slightly different place, right?

So then if you're so convinced that you're position is the correct one, go convince a bunch of people that's the case. Get them to vote you into office so you can act on your position.

If I decide I really want to oppose you because mine's different, I'll see if I can convince more people than you can.

This is how American representative democracy works.

We don't all have to agree unanimously on where to draw the line on every issue. There isn't some "central planning commission" that requires unanimous approval on every issue from every citizen before it can act in sweeping fashion.

See what I'm getting at?

I was just trying to demonstrate that the line is in a different spot for every person, but that the line DOES exist. You obviously have one, you said it yourself.

All we can do is argue over where the line is, try to convince our fellow citizens, get their support, run for office, and try to act based on our own convictions.

The "winner" ultimately gets to decide for everyone, whether everyone actually agrees or not.

Welcome to America. Got a problem with how it operates? Anyone?

[hsckris]

Obviously. I guess I just assumed that is what the debate would be about. There is or at least should be some sort of line.

I will never see the logic of drawing the line anywhere closer... I simply don't understand why somebody would want government to help those who simply choose not to help themselves. In my view that is inevitable if you draw the line anywhere past disability, incapacity, etc.

[smockers83]

I will never see the logic of drawing the line anywhere closer... I simply don't understand why somebody would want government to help those who simply choose not to help themselves.

We take for granted that we know of opportunities to help ourselves succeed. If you're poor and poorly educated, perhaps by choice, and you want to get out of it, how many opportunities are you going to know about? Most likely not too many. Will you believe in yourself? Most likely not because you don't know how to get out of it and/or where to turn for help. Plus, everyone around you is in the same situation so they can't help you. People who are poor may be there by choices they made in their lives, but do you really think they want to remain poor and not succeed, just to remain a failure? This is why you invest in them a little bit, give them some help and the ones who want to succeed will succeed in becoming not poor. We just need to give them a little boost to get started, not just prop them up by throwing money at them.

[WDRacing]

We take for granted that we know of opportunities to help ourselves succeed. If you're poor and poorly educated, perhaps by choice, and you want to get out of it, how many opportunities are you going to know about? Most likely not too many. Will you believe in yourself? Most likely not because you don't know how to get out of it and/or where to turn for help. Plus, everyone around you is in the same situation so they can't help you. People who are poor may be there by choices they made in their lives, but do you really think they want to remain poor and not succeed, just to remain a failure? This is why you invest in them a little bit, give them some help and the ones who want to succeed will succeed in becoming not poor. We just need to give them a little boost to get started, not just prop them up by throwing money at them.

The point is, the giving of said help, needs to be voluntary. Don't take money from me and give it to people just because they don't know how to help themselves.

Point? Tax everyone the same, if some of that money goes to help the "stupids" then fine. But don't tax the successful people more just because they are successful. It's NOT our responsibilty to help people that don't help themselves. Like I said already, it's choices that put you where you are. There is always someone worse off then you are...always.

[hsckris]

We take for granted that we know of opportunities to help ourselves succeed. If you're poor and poorly educated, perhaps by choice, and you want to get out of it, how many opportunities are you going to know about? Most likely not too many. Will you believe in yourself? Most likely not because you don't know how to get out of it and/or where to turn for help. Plus, everyone around you is in the same situation so they can't help you. People who are poor may be there by choices they made in their lives, but do you really think they want to remain poor and not succeed, just to remain a failure? This is why you invest in them a little bit, give them some help and the ones who want to succeed will succeed in becoming not poor. We just need to give them a little boost to get started, not just prop them up by throwing money at them.

I simply don't understand why somebody would want government to help those who simply choose not to help themselves.

When I say this, I'm talking about the people referenced below:

as is evident from the current state of the welfare system. People learn that they don't have to succeed, and the government will give them a check and pay for their groceries (food stamps, wic, etc). Then they begin to do things JUST to cheat the system -- using their merit in exactly the opposite way it was intended. IMO if they are smart enough to cheat the system, they are smart enough to get a job & support themselves. I have seen this first hand on MANY an occassion, so don't give me that "its not very common" or "it doesn't happen." From what I have seen, the more assistance you try to provide, the more widespread this problem becomes.

As to the people who are poor "by circumstances" or however you want to call it -- that is crap. Everyone has an opportunity for success in America. I do not come from a good financial background, nor a good public school system, and I now hold a graduate degree. If I can do it, so can/could they. For reference, my middle school had a student parking lot. My high school was entirely lined with police (on occasion -- not constantly) because of race riots. Etc. I put myself through college & my wife and I put me through grad school. I have no sympathy for anyone blaming anyone other than themselves for their lack of success. Opportunities exist if you have the motivation to succeed.Besides -- even if I buy into your argument that somebody should prop them up, why does it have to be the government? I believe that the community & organizations (charities, churches, etc.) and not the government are responsible for helping those who have a need.

Edit -- WD is right on as well. Its not upto the gov't to punish those who help themselves to prop up those who refuse to help themselves.