America - The Official Thread

[MrktMkr1986]

Ok, Now. I usually don't side with Danoff and I'm not totally doing it here. However, I believe that giving away tax money from one person to help another WITHOUT meeting the needs of the person that you took the money from is wrong.

Could you elaborate on that, please? I'm not entirely certain as to what you mean by "meeting the needs of the person that you took the money from"... you mean the people who are being taxed? If so, then yes, I would agree -- but it's still not theft.

Why is it that I pay taxes, do not get welfare, but can't get a pothole in the road fixed?

It'll get fixed eventually. These things take more time than you might think.

Better yet, why are schools budets based on property taxes?

I have just the answer you are looking for in this link.

This automatically sets up an imbalance and almost reinstates "Seperate but equal, economically"

Ah! You've hit the nail on the head! BINGO!

Taxes are NOT theft and are needed in our society. I have no problem with taxes. I have problems as to were my tax money goes!

Then when it comes time to vote, vote for the person that you believe will best re-distribute your tax money.

What? So if someone breaks into your house to steal money it isn't theft if they had a certain motive??? What motives make it OK?

I never said theft was OK. I said the re-distribution of wealth was OK depending on the motive. I must've read it wrong... At any rate, no, theft is bad. However, taxes (including the redistribution of wealth) are OK -- depending on the motive.

Taxation is not necessary, especially not income tax - but I don't really want to drag this thread down that road. Suffice it to say that I'm ok with taxes being constitutional. My beef is with the redistribution of wealth.

Why? Why is the redistribution of wealth so hard for you to accept. Do you really believe that you'd be able to live "a much better life" if only you'd get to keep a few extra dollars in your pocket?

You mean like the military? I'm surprised you don't know that I know this.

I know that you know that I know you knew that. j/k

I know you know that... but based on your arguments against taxation I just wanted to throw that in there.

Redistribution of wealth is theft. Welfare and other "social insurance" programs are theft because they are collected at the point of a gun. If it's such a great idea a private organization will offer "unemployment insurnace" that you can buy.

The redistribution of wealth is NOT theft. Do you consider car insurance theft? Life insurance?

And this rhetoric about social insurance being theft because they are collected at the point of a gun has got to stop. Would you still pay your taxes if they were not "forced"?

Private unemployment insurance is an oxymoron. Obviously one would have to pay for a specific policy. However, what if they cannot afford to buy unemployment insurance (umm... becuase they're unemployed! 💡 )... then what? What if the unemployment rate skyrockets during a bear market and the need exceeds the resources of private organizations? Then what?

Your arguments are leaving me with too many questions to ask! Please answer them!

 

[Danoff]

It'll get fixed eventually. These things take more time than you might think.

Especially in government.

Then when it comes time to vote, vote for the person that you believe will best re-distribute your tax money.

Tyranny of the majority.

I never said theft was OK. I said the re-distribution of wealth was OK depending on the motive. I must've read it wrong... At any rate, no, theft is bad. However, taxes (including the redistribution of wealth) are OK -- depending on the motive.

We were talking about theft. I asked if it was ok to steal someone's money and you said depending on the motive. I think we miscommunicated in there somewhere.

Why? Why is the redistribution of wealth so hard for you to accept. Do you really believe that you'd be able to live "a much better life" if only you'd get to keep a few extra dollars in your pocket?

Why is it hard for me to accept? Because it's theft. I earned the money... and that money is taken from me and given (for no services rendered) to others against my will at the threat of force.

That's the textbook definition of theft.

The redistribution of wealth is NOT theft. Do you consider car insurance theft? Life insurance?

HA! No. Car insurance is voluntary. I don't have to own a car if I don't want to, so I don't have to pay car insurance. If I do own a car I don't have to drive it on public roads. I certainly am not required to pay for life insurance.

And this rhetoric about social insurance being theft because they are collected at the point of a gun has got to stop. Would you still pay your taxes if they were not "forced"?

Nope. But I might donate to certain causes.

Private unemployment insurance is an oxymoron. Obviously one would have to pay for a specific policy. However, what if they cannot afford to buy unemployment insurance (umm... becuase they're unemployed! 💡 )... then what? What if the unemployment rate skyrockets during a bear market and the need exceeds the resources of private organizations? Then what?

Did you give that any thought or did you just want to brush it away without considering it? Did you really use all of your creativity to see if there was a way it could work? Did you think about it for more than a second? Let me give you a scenario (that didn't take any time to come up with).

Dude pays for unemployment insurance.
Dude gets fired while "covered" by unemployment insurance.
Dude calls up unemployment insurance agency:
"I got fired."
"Ok sir, we'll start mailing you replacement paychecks immediately. Your official coverage will last 3 months and you don't have to send us the normal fee until you get another job."

Pretty easy. It could work much the same way regular insurance works - even if they take a loss on one particular person, they're turning a major profit on many others who are happy because they're covered.

But we don't have that - partially because why should we have it if its "free" (ie: provided inefficiently by tax dollars).


Edit: I'm not saying there is a good business model here - in fact, it may not be feasible to turn a profit on it. But that's all the more reason why the government shouldn't be invovled.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Especially in government.

True.

Tyranny of the majority.

There are 4 ways in which power can be distributed. Power is either in the hands of the majority, a select few (minority), or a single entity (otherwise it would be anarchy in my opinion). Who then should decide how tax dollars are distributed?

We were talking about theft. I asked if it was ok to steal someone's money and you said depending on the motive. I think we miscommunicated in there somewhere.

Most likely. I hope I cleared everything up, though.

Why is it hard for me to accept? Because it's theft. I earned the money... and that money is taken from me and given (for no services rendered) to others against my will at the threat of force.

That's the textbook definition of theft.

In the event that you lose your job, you are guaranteed an unemployment check. If you are having trouble making payments from being out of work for too long, you should be able to get welfare. If you are lucky enough to keep a job, then yes, technically no services are rendered. But the same can be said for car insurance, too. It's not until you get into accident or your car is stolen before any services are rendered.

HA! No. Car insurance is voluntary.

True, but a car is not a necessity. The right to life is.

I don't have to own a car if I don't want to, so I don't have to pay car insurance.

You also don't have to have a job if you don't want to, so you don't have to pay the taxes that will inevitably be redistributed.

Nope. But I might donate to certain causes.

So basically what you're saying here is that you refuse to donate (or donate very little) because of the taxes that are taken out of your salary?

Did you give that any thought or did you just want to brush it away without considering it? Did you really use all of your creativity to see if there was a way it could work? Did you think about it for more than a second? Let me give you a scenario (that didn't take any time to come up with).

Dude pays for unemployment insurance.

How? How does dude pay for unemployment insurance if he has no money? Remember, welfare doesn't exist at this point.

Dude gets fired while "covered" by unemployment insurance.

What if he's not covered because he couldn't afford to pay for unemployment insurance?

Dude calls up unemployment insurance agency:
"I got fired."
"Ok sir, we'll start mailing you replacement paychecks immediately. Your official coverage will last 3 months and you don't have to send us the normal fee until you get another job."

That's the best case scenario. You are also assuming Mr. Dude has money. Not every one can afford insurance. Many people can barely scrape together enough money to pay for rent. How can you automatically assume Mr. Dude has money? Let's pretend for a second that he doesn't (like I did -- I see the issue from both sides if you haven't noticed -- hence the questions)... what is Mr. Dude to do?

Pretty easy.

Assuming he has the money.

It could work much the same way regular insurance works - even if they take a loss on one particular person, they're turning a major profit on many others who are happy because they're covered.

I don't believe they'd take a loss. They'd probably send the accounts receivable to a collection's agency.

But we don't have that - partially because why should we have it if its "free" (ie: provided inefficiently by tax dollars).

It's "free" because people (with a conscience) know that not everyone would be able to afford it if it were privatized.

 

[Danoff]

There are 4 ways in which power can be distributed. Power is either in the hands of the majority, a select few (minority), or a single entity (otherwise it would be anarchy in my opinion). Who then should decide how tax dollars are distributed?

I'm not saying that democracy is unacceptable. I'm saying that there are some ways to distribute tax dollars that are unconstitutional. For example, taxing the black to give money to the white (or vice versa) is unconstitutional because it is racist. Taxing the rich to give to the poor is the same kind of biased behavior.

In the event that you lose your job, you are guaranteed an unemployment check. If you are having trouble making payments from being out of work for too long, you should be able to get welfare. If you are lucky enough to keep a job, then yes, technically no services are rendered. But the same can be said for car insurance, too. It's not until you get into accident or your car is stolen before any services are rendered.

I'm not free NOT to pay for it. So it's theft.

True, but a car is not a necessity. The right to life is.

The right to life is the right not to have your life TAKEN from you. Not to have your life maintained FOR you.

You also don't have to have a job if you don't want to, so you don't have to pay the taxes that will inevitably be redistributed.

I have to have a job so that I can survive.

So basically what you're saying here is that you refuse to donate (or donate very little) because of the taxes that are taken out of your salary?

Nope. I refuse to donate to areas that are supposedly already being provided (poorly) by our government.

How? How does dude pay for unemployment insurance if he has no money? Remember, welfare doesn't exist at this point.

He paid for it when he had a job.

What if he's not covered because he couldn't afford to pay for unemployment insurance?

Tough ****.

It's "free" because people (with a conscience) know that not everyone would be able to afford it if it were privatized.

OH!!! You have a conscience and I don't!!! You want to provide for people who will not provide for themselves with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY!!! How is that ethical? If you want them to be taken care of so badly - do it yourself. But keep your hands out of my wallet. If you REALLY had a conscience you'd be out there doing it all on your own steam.

I'm the one with the conscience. I'm the one who refuses to steal from others. I'm not willing to commit a crime so that people can live without responsibility (<- keep that phrase in mind when you respond to the "tough ****" remark).

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'm not saying that democracy is unacceptable.

OK, just making sure. That's really what I was hoping to hear.

I'm saying that there are some ways to distribute tax dollars that are unconstitutional. For example, taxing the black to give money to the white (or vice versa) is unconstitutional because it is racist. Taxing the rich to give to the poor is the same kind of biased behavior.

I would agree with you 100% if weren't for one minor problem. The rich are taxed more because the rich get more from the government. Consider these examples:

* The rich benefit more from national defense. Sure defending the country benefits everyone, however, the rich benefit more because they have more to defend. Just like car insurance -- you're going to pay a higher premium for a Maybach 62 (or even an Acura RSX Type-S) than you are for a 1988 Volvo 740 Turbo.

* Social security payments also benefit the rich. If you put more into it, you get more money out when you retire.

* Energy is used disproportionately by the rich as well. Take gasoline for [one] example. Is it any surprise that a Toyota Echo (very inexpensive) gets way better gas mileage than the Maybach 62?

Taxing the rich to give to the poor is not biased behavior. The poor are the one's who are being taxed by the rich -- the redistribution of income is simply just a way to guarantee that everyone gets their fair share -- in my opinion. I could be wrong.

I'm not free NOT to pay for it. So it's theft.

You're not free not to pay for it because it's your obligation to pay for it -- not because it's theft.

The right to life is the right not to have your life TAKEN from you. Not to have your life maintained FOR you.

I agree (partially) with the latter, but (definitely) not the former.

Nope. I refuse to donate to areas that are supposedly already being provided (poorly) by our government.

OK.

He paid for it when he had a job.

Again... this is under the assumption that he had enough money to spare at the end of the month to pay for it. Not everyone has that luxury.

Tough ****.

Processing...

OH!!! You have a conscience and I don't!!!

That's not what I was trying to imply. But, if you have a guilty conscience... j/k

All kidding aside... I didn't mean to imply anything by that statement. I'm sure you are good person.

You want to provide for people who will not provide for themselves with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY!!! How is that ethical?

It's a collective effort. That's what makes it ethical. If only the top 5% wage earners were forced to pay for the other 95% of the working population AND pay for people who cannot work, then I would agree with what you are saying. However, that is not the case. It is the collective effort between the top 5% earners all the way down to the bottom 5% earners to help pay for those in need.

If you want them to be taken care of so badly - do it yourself.

I am paying for it... you are paying for it... everyone that pays taxes is paying for it! It is a collective effort. In order for a society to work, we must all work (double pun!) together. That includes paying for social insurance, whether or not we benefit from it.

But keep your hands out of my wallet.

I'm not the one with the guns blazing.

If you REALLY had a conscience you'd be out there doing it all on your own steam.

If I did do it all on my own steam, I wouldn't be able to provide for enough people. I, myself, would need assistance. Where would that money come from?

I'm the one with the conscience. I'm the one who refuses to steal from others.

Would you try to save your best friend from committing suicide? (Yes, this question IS relevant to the topic at hand -- so please don't freak out).

I'm not willing to commit a crime so that people can live without responsibility (<- keep that phrase in mind when you respond to the "tough ****" remark).

Having bounced that phrase around in my head for while, I think it's now time to respond to the "tough crap" remark:

Why are you under the assumption that everyone on welfare is taking advantage of it? Do you really believe that everyone on welfare is content with being on welfare? Do you really believe that anyone who uses food stamps, section 8 etc. is just "some leech" that's out to get your money? How would you feel if your financial situation deteriorated to a point where YOU had no choice but to be on welfare, or ask for section 8, or go to the supermarket to buy groceries with food stamps? Would the first thing on your mind be:

* OH YEAH! I BE GETTIN' THIS FREE ****, DOG! I AIN'T NEVA GOIN' TO WORK, AGAIN B! SHIZZLE!

--- or ---

(looks through newspaper ads) This looks like an interesting job... (dials number)... "Hello, my name is ________; I'm calling in response to your ad in the today's paper."

Seeing as how we BOTH know the answer to that question, I have to ask you again:

Do you really believe that everyone on welfare is content with being on welfare?

 

[Danoff]

I would agree with you 100% if weren't for one minor problem. The rich are taxed more because the rich get more from the government. Consider these examples:

* The rich benefit more from national defense. Sure defending the country benefits everyone, however, the rich benefit more because they have more to defend. Just like car insurance -- you're going to pay a higher premium for a Maybach 62 (or even an Acura RSX Type-S) than you are for a 1988 Volvo 740 Turbo.

The military don't exist to protect your car (or your house) from foreigners. It exists to protect your RIGHTS from foreigners. We each have the same rights and we each benefit from the military equally - they protect our lives.

* Social security payments also benefit the rich. If you put more into it, you get more money out when you retire.

Up to a point, but rich people will never get out of it what they put in. There is a cap on social security payouts. The system would fall apart if it weren't lopsided in the favor of the poor.

* Energy is used disproportionately by the rich as well. Take gasoline for [one] example. Is it any surprise that a Toyota Echo (very inexpensive) gets way better gas mileage than the Maybach 62?

...and why are we talking about gas? That's not paid for with taxes, neither is electricity.

Taxing the rich to give to the poor is not biased behavior. The poor are the one's who are being taxed by the rich -- the redistribution of income is simply just a way to guarantee that everyone gets their fair share -- in my opinion. I could be wrong.

How are the poor taxed by the rich?

You're not free not to pay for it because it's your obligation to pay for it -- not because it's theft.

It's my obligation to help the poor? I didn't realize it was my obligation to provide for other people's lives.

I agree (partially) with the latter, but (definitely) not the former.

The former was the easy part, care to elaborate?

That's not what I was trying to imply. But, if you have a guilty conscience... j/k

Not funny... and I think was was your intent.

It's a collective effort. That's what makes it ethical. If only the top 5% wage earners were forced to pay for the other 95% of the working population AND pay for people who cannot work, then I would agree with what you are saying. However, that is not the case. It is the collective effort between the top 5% earners all the way down to the bottom 5% earners to help pay for those in need.

The bottom 10% of earners pay negative income tax (ie: they get larger returns than they paid in). It's called "earned income" which means they get income they didn't earn. The top 20% of earners pay something on the order of 80-85% of all income tax. Income tax comprises about half of what the government takes in - the rest is paid by corporate taxes (which effectively raises prices so you and I pay that too... but the rich pay more because they (voluntarily) spend more).

Collective effort doesn't make anything ethical. If we all work together to kill of the jews, that doesn't make it any more ethical.

I am paying for it... you are paying for it... everyone that pays taxes is paying for it! It is a collective effort. In order for a society to work, we must all work (double pun!) together. That includes paying for social insurance, whether or not we benefit from it.

Does it? I don't see the necessity.

If I did do it all on my own steam, I wouldn't be able to provide for enough people. I, myself, would need assistance. Where would that money come from?

It would have to come from others like yourself or other donations. Even if there wasn't enough (in your opinion) that doesn't give you the right to take other people's money.

Would you try to save your best friend from committing suicide? (Yes, this question IS relevant to the topic at hand -- so please don't freak out).

I would try to talk him out of it but I would not physically restrain him.

Why are you under the assumption that everyone on welfare is taking advantage of it?

It is impossible to receive welfare and not be abusing the system. Welfare is an abuse of the system.

Do you really believe that anyone who uses food stamps, section 8 etc. is just "some leech" that's out to get your money?

No, I don't have enough money for people to go after. The leeches are after people who make much more than I do and are much less mainstream. The worst leeches aren't the ones cashing in the checks. The worst leeches are the ones taking money from the rich and giving it the poor in the name of charity. Those people can't even be bothered to fund their own cause.

There's a joke about this. A republican and a democrat (the parties aren't really important) are walking by a homeless person. The homeless guy asks if they can spare some cash. The republican says "Sure" and reaches into his wallet for a 5 dollar bill. The homeless person takes it and asks if the democrat can also spare some money. The democrat says "absolutely" and reaches into the republican's wallet to pull out a 10 dollar bill.

How would you feel if your financial situation deteriorated to a point where YOU had no choice but to be on welfare, or ask for section 8, or go to the supermarket to buy groceries with food stamps? Would the first thing on your mind be:

The first thing on my mind would be, I need another job. Mark my words right here. I will never, in my entire life, even ONCE draw unemployment or welfare from the US government. I refuse to accept money that is ill-gotten. If I someday need charity, I will only accept money that is freely given as charity.

 

[Swift]

The first thing on my mind would be, I need another job. Mark my words right here. I will never, in my entire life, even ONCE draw unemployment or welfare from the US government. I refuse to accept money that is ill-gotten. If I someday need charity, I will only accept money that is freely given as charity.

Ok, I understand welfare. But you're paying into unemployment right now. For you to use it as a stopgap between jobs isn't leaching or lazy. If you take a month and get 2-3 checks for unemployment, that problem equals 5% of what you put into it. Don't forget they are taking it whether you get unemployment later or not.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, I understand welfare. But you're paying into unemployment right now. For you to use it as a stopgap between jobs isn't leaching or lazy. If you take a month and get 2-3 checks for unemployment, that problem equals 5% of what you put into it. Don't forget they are taking it whether you get unemployment later or not.

I won't be cashing any social security checks either.

Here's the deal. When they take my money and give it to someone who is unemployed, they're doing just that... taking it from me and giving it to them. They're not putting it in a safe somewhere for me to draw upon my own cash down the line. My money is spent. If I were to collect unemployment, I would be getting someone else's money that they had no choice but to give me. It isn't my money at that point, my money has already been stolen and given away.... same thing with SS.


Ok thought experiment.

You're walking down the street and some dude steals your money. Later, he gives it to someone else.

You're walking down the street later on and the same dude comes up to you with some cash and tries to give it to you.

Do you take it? It would be as though the theif was giving you your money back. But you know he gave YOUR money away and that he has stolen someone else's cash to give to you.

I wouldn't take it.

 

[Swift]

I won't be cashing any social security checks either.

Here's the deal. When they take my money and give it to someone who is unemployed, they're doing just that... taking it from me and giving it to them. They're not putting it in a safe somewhere for me to draw upon my own cash down the line. My money is spent. If I were to collect unemployment, I would be getting someone else's money that they had no choice but to give me. It isn't my money at that point, my money has already been stolen and given away.... same thing with SS.


Ok thought experiment.

You're walking down the street and some dude steals your money. Later, he gives it to someone else.

You're walking down the street later on and the same dude comes up to you with some cash and tries to give it to you.

Do you take it? It would be as though the theif was giving you your money back. But you know he gave YOUR money away and that he has stolen someone else's cash to give to you.

I wouldn't take it.

I see where you're coming from. But my point is simply that you're paying for others WITHOUT choice. So why not take it when it's NEEDED?

 

[Danoff]

I see where you're coming from. But my point is simply that you're paying for others WITHOUT choice. So why not take it when it's NEEDED?

Because my need does not entitle me to someone else's money.

 

[Grand Prix]

Interesting that you guys brought up "leeches". Out of curiousity, if a man with impaired hearing were to be promoted ahead of you because it makes your company look good, would this man be a "leech" or would he deserve the promotion? Would this man be a "parasite" or would it be okay if he got the promotion, since if social programs didn't exist the man wouldn't have a job in the first place?


(Of course your answer to this question might turn more to the left if I were to reveal that I, myself, am hearing impaired. )

 

[Swift]

Because my need does not entitle me to someone else's money.

Got to give you respect for totally sticking to your convictions.

Interesting that you guys brought up "leeches". Out of curiousity, if a man with impaired hearing were to be promoted ahead of you because it makes your company look good, would this man be a "leech" or would he deserve the promotion? Would this man be a "parasite" or would it be okay if he got the promotion, since if social programs didn't exist the man wouldn't have a job in the first place?


(Of course your answer to this question might turn more to the left if I were to reveal that I, myself, am hearing impaired. )

I would call it discrimination. My fiancee is hearing impared in one ear. But she never tells anyone about it.

I have not problem with the "handicapped" getting promotions and succeeding. As long is it's not "just" because they're handicapped or "just" because they're black.

 

[Danoff]

Interesting that you guys brought up "leeches". Out of curiousity, if a man with impaired hearing were to be promoted ahead of you because it makes your company look good, would this man be a "leech" or would he deserve the promotion? Would this man be a "parasite" or would it be okay if he got the promotion, since if social programs didn't exist the man wouldn't have a job in the first place?

(Of course your answer to this question might turn more to the left if I were to reveal that I, myself, am hearing impaired. )

If the man wouldn't have a job in the first place without the social programs, then he is a leech. If he got the job on his own steam and was promoted for simply because it would make the company look good, he is not a leech - he is lucky.


Edit: I'm ok with discrimination in the workplace. I'd be fine if someone got a promotion just because they were black or hearing impaired or hot. But it is discrimination.

 

[Grand Prix]

So, if I were to have the same job as you, even though I only have 90% of your skills or-so, you would be alright with that as long as I was hearing impaired?

 

[Swift]

So, if I were to have the same job as you, even though I only have 90% of your skills or-so, you would be alright with that as long as I was hearing impaired?

Would I like it? probably not. But would I think it's weak? Well, if you can do that job then all I can do is not like it. If you CAN'T do the job and others are forced to help you, then that's just plain weak.

 

[Grand Prix]

Would I like it? probably not. But would I think it's weak? Well, if you can do that job then all I can do is not like it. If you CAN'T do the job and others are forced to help you, then that's just plain weak.

Right, I can see where you're coming from. But if I couldn't hear my boss's exact instructions, you wouldn't be annoyed if I asked him/her to repeat him/herself?

Just curious that's all. I'm thinking about getting a job this year and I'd like to get a general idea of how my co-workers would treat me.

 

[Swift]

Right, I can see where you're coming from. But if I couldn't hear my boss's exact instructions, you wouldn't be annoyed if I asked him/her to repeat him/herself?

Just curious that's all. I'm thinking about getting a job this year and I'd like to get a general idea of how my co-workers would treat me.

I assume you can read lips and what not. So I would get a job where you didn't have to listen to a whole lot of stuff.

But I certainly wouldn't hold it against you.

 

[Danoff]

So, if I were to have the same job as you, even though I only have 90% of your skills or-so, you would be alright with that as long as I was hearing impaired?

I'd be alright with it as long as you were selected for the job voluntarily by the company and they had some reason to want you there.

 

[Grand Prix]

Yes, I can read lips and hear low to medium pitched sounds. Although I'm not completely "deaf", it is severe. Good to see that the replies have been mature and respectful. 👍

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The military don't exist to protect your car (or your house) from foreigners. It exists to protect your RIGHTS from foreigners.

I agree, however, our definition of rights are very different.

We each have the same rights and we each benefit from the military equally - they protect our lives.

I disagree in that because the rich have more to lose, they benefit MORE from the military. Again, this is why we pay more to insure a Mercedes than we do for a Ford. There's more at stake in the event of a loss.

Up to a point, but rich people will never get out of it what they put in.

That's the way it should be in my opinion.

There is a cap on social security payouts. The system would fall apart if it weren't lopsided in the favor of the poor.

I agree.

...and why are we talking about gas? That's not paid for with taxes, neither is electricity.

I was only using it as an analogy... perhaps it was a poor analogy but in retrospect, the insurance example pretty much explains what I was trying to say.

How are the poor taxed by the rich?

Sales tax is a regressive tax.

It's my obligation to help the poor?

In my opinion, yes.

The former was the easy part, care to elaborate?

Sure. In an earlier post you said:

The right to life is the right not to have your life TAKEN from you.

Thou shall not kill -- err -- the right to life is the right not to have your life taken from you provided you haven't committed a capital offense (in which case I believe one should have their life taken from them). Like I said, I partially agree with that statement.

Not to have your life maintained FOR you.

I disagree here. If someone needs help, they deserve to get help. Seeing as how private charity doesn't work (or can't work on it's own), we need a welfare system.

Not funny... and I think was was your intent.

It wasn't.

The bottom 10% of earners pay negative income tax (ie: they get larger returns than they paid in). It's called "earned income" which means they get income they didn't earn.

As it should be.

The top 20% of earners pay something on the order of 80-85% of all income tax.

They earn more, so they get taxed more -- progressive tax. As it should be. It's the only way to counter the fact that the poor are taxed by the rich.

Income tax comprises about half of what the government takes in - the rest is paid by corporate taxes (which effectively raises prices so you and I pay that too... but the rich pay more because they (voluntarily) spend more).

Actually, it's the other way around. The poor pay more in sales taxes relatively speaking.

Collective effort doesn't make anything ethical. If we all work together to kill of the jews, that doesn't make it any more ethical.

Why on earth would you compare welfare, a humanitarian effort, to mass genocide? I don't get that...

Maybe I should elaborate. The collective effort to work for the greater good is ethical.

Does it? I don't see the necessity.

How else would you see it working?

It would have to come from others like yourself or other donations. Even if there wasn't enough (in your opinion) that doesn't give you the right to take other people's money.

It may not give me the right to take other people's money, but how else would we be able to get things done? Few, if any people would donate money if left to their own devices -- hence the existance of welfare.

I would try to talk him out of it but I would not physically restrain him.

This is precisely why we can't agree on certain issues. I believe that the use of force is necessary if it means saving someone's life (whether it be financially or physically as in the attempted suicide example).

It is impossible to receive welfare and not be abusing the system. Welfare is an abuse of the system.

If you're talking about the free market system, then yes. However, the free market is NOT a panacea. You can't just privatize and deregulate and expect things to be better.

No, I don't have enough money for people to go after. The leeches are after people who make much more than I do and are much less mainstream.

That's all relative.

The worst leeches aren't the ones cashing in the checks.

That's what I was waiting to here.

The worst leeches are the ones taking money from the rich and giving it the poor in the name of charity. Those people can't even be bothered to fund their own cause.

I guess you mean SOME of those people -- I wouldn't exactly consider myself a person who can't be bothered to fund my own cause.

There's a joke about this. A republican and a democrat (the parties aren't really important) are walking by a homeless person. The homeless guy asks if they can spare some cash. The republican says "Sure" and reaches into his wallet for a 5 dollar bill. The homeless person takes it and asks if the democrat can also spare some money. The democrat says "absolutely" and reaches into the republican's wallet to pull out a 10 dollar bill.

The democrat did that only because he had given away all of his money and he knew the Republican was being cheap.

The first thing on my mind would be, I need another job. Mark my words right here. I will never, in my entire life, even ONCE draw unemployment or welfare from the US government. I refuse to accept money that is ill-gotten. If I someday need charity, I will only accept money that is freely given as charity.

And if there is not enough, you will either starve and/or be homeless in the name of what? Pride? Justice? Rights? I don't get it...

You use government funded services EVERYDAY. You have no choice in the matter. So why is this (welfare) such a problem? Just because you don't use it, we should eliminate it? Just because I don't use it, I shouldn't have to pay for it? I don't get it...

 

[ledhed]

Why would you NOT collect unemployment ? You pay for unemployment insurance its calculated in your pay . So whats your point ? Even welfare is something YOU paid and are paying for . Have you taken a look at the " workfare " ...welfare system lately ? Its as close to the conservative ideal as it's ever going to get IMO .

 

[Swift]

Why would you NOT collect unemployment ? You pay for unemployment insurance its calculated in your pay . So whats your point ? Even welfare is something YOU paid and are paying for . Have you taken a look at the " workfare " ...welfare system lately ? Its as close to the conservative ideal as it's ever going to get IMO .

While I don't agree with Danoff, I do respect him for standing for his ideals. He believes giving money to the poor by taking from the rich without their consent is theft. Hence he will not take unemployment. Pretty stand up policy actually.

 

[ledhed]

I still do not get how not taking money YOU HAVE PAID FOR has anything to do with being rich or poor. Unemployment insurance is not welfare . Its nothing like it . Its INSURANCE . Would you send back your Social security check ? Would you send back your disability insurance check ? If your home burned down ...would you refuse to put in a claim ? WTF am I missing here ???

 

[Swift]

I still do not get how not taking money YOU HAVE PAID FOR has anything to do with being rich or poor. Unemployment insurance is not welfare . Its nothing like it . Its INSURANCE . Would you send back your Social security check ? Would you send back your disability insurance check ? If your home burned down ...would you refuse to put in a claim ? WTF am I missing here ???

As Danoff was explain the way he understands. The money that he put into it is long gone. So, he would be taking other's money. That's how he looks at it.

 

[Danoff]

I still do not get how not taking money YOU HAVE PAID FOR has anything to do with being rich or poor. Unemployment insurance is not welfare . Its nothing like it . Its INSURANCE . Would you send back your Social security check ? Would you send back your disability insurance check ? If your home burned down ...would you refuse to put in a claim ? WTF am I missing here ???

I will not collect social security either.

I will claim any insurance that I have voluntarily agreed to. I will not claim any insurance that is involuntarily taken from me.

Scenarios

1) When I claim insurance that I have voluntarily agreed to, others will be paying for my claim - but they have also voluntarily agreed to it.

2) When I claim insurance that i have not voluntarily agreed to, others will be involuntarily paying for my claim.

The second case is theft.

 

[Swift]

I will not collect social security either.

I will claim any insurance that I have voluntarily agreed to. I will not claim any insurance that is involuntarily taken from me.

Scenarios

1) When I claim insurance that I have voluntarily agreed to, others will be paying for my claim - but they have also voluntarily agreed to it.

2) When I claim insurance that i have not voluntarily agreed to, others will be involuntarily paying for my claim.

The second case is theft.

Yep, got to admit. He sticks to his guns. Very logical Danoff. I really don't agree, but logical none the less.

 

[Danoff]

Yep, got to admit. He sticks to his guns. Very logical Danoff. I really don't agree, but logical none the less.

What's not to agree with? Where do I go wrong in my assessment?

 

[coolacrille]

I just want to clear one thing out:

Every American I meet online hates the French. Period. (At least the ones I've asked)
Why is that?

I know that the American's "saved the French in WWII". So is it because they didn't want to kill Iraqi's?

I JUST DON'T GET IT!!!


Please enlight me...

 

[Danoff]

I just want to clear one thing out:

Every American I meet online hates the French. Period. (At least the ones I've asked)
Why is that?

I know that the American's "saved the French in WWII". So is it because they didn't want to kill Iraqi's?

I JUST DON'T GET IT!!!


Please enlight me...

I think it's a culture clash. I don't hate the French, but I have no love for them either.

I think it's a fundamental difference in culture. Think about French and American cultures and how completely at odds they are...

 

[Duke]

It's because, historically and in very very general terms, the French have tended to look down upon Americans as inferior in taste and intellect, while (at the same time) not hesitating to take our money through any means possible.

On the subject of Brian's and Dan's debate, I see Brian still has no comprehension of what the term "rights" actually means...