Income Redistribution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]florelius wrote:
I know loopholes are not tax evation, but a corrupt tax system like a one with loopholes cause tax evasion. I thougt I was clear in my post, but I where not I guess.

When it comes to privat vs public education or healthcare is a matter of opinion or perception if you will. I would prefer a 100% progressive tax to finance this institutions because its the most social way to finance it. I know you libertarians are against prog-tax of all your heart and I know you would prefer the same price for all, from your perception thats most fear or equal if you like and in some sense it is, but in some other sense its not, because it means the less cash you got the higher % of your income you pay.
[/quote]

If I knew where I posted about healthcare, I would give you the link, because I don’t advocate equal price for everyone. That is ridiculous. Bill Gates doesn’t value a check-up from the doctor the same as a poor person. A poor person is less likely to go to a doctor than Bill Gates, I’m sure Bill Gates get quarterly or even monthly check-ups.

I also know old timers back in the 30’s and 40’s who were doctors, or what they called themselves Master Barbers or Medical Barbers. Didn’t have much of the way of insurance programs back then, specially for healthcare. And, everyone unless they just didn’t want to could and usually did go to the doctor because of how often people got ill, still was cheaper back then.

Told me that how they did work back then is the same way their teachers did it since the 1880’s and 90’s all the way up until they started working. If someone came in and didn’t have the money (which no one became a doctor back then to become rich, the prices were much lower comparatively to now) and had a job, they’d pay it off in payments. Or they’d do something for the doctor. Some of the doctors would have check-ups paid in a basket of food. The doctors even went to people’s homes, didn’t have to drive all the way into the city to see the doctor. He’d come right out, see what was wrong with you, leave you some medicine and you’d be around in a week.

The children would come in for check-ups for free once or twice a year, get a lollipop and go on back home.

What happened? Wages froze during the WWII, companies gave insurance to their employees, government said that companies had to give their employees insurance, ADA came around made it harder to become a doctor, and regulation all around. And, now we’re sitting in the hogs pig shit.

I’m not rich, and I’m not middle class. Sorry to break it to you, I could give a shit about rich folks, I ain’t one of them and they can take care of themselves. I’m a poor guy, my family is all blue collar except my aunt, which she’s basically a blue collar gal with a fat bank roll.

Just because you choose the poor and you choose progressive doesn’t mean that I’m going to agree with you just because I am for the poor. I tell you what, I bet I’ve done more in the three years in Flagstaff for the poor (we have the third highest homeless rate in the country behind Lawrence, KS and somewhere else, I forget) than Obama has for Illinois.

You know how I do it? I do pancake breakfasts for the poor and needy (abused women and children and pets), volunteer at soup kitchens, adopt families during Christmas, pick up homeless people to take them to the homeless shelter, bring the homeless coffee and donuts on Saturday morning out of the back of my vehicle, work with businessmen to get underprivileged kids into private school for a good education, collect donations for the third world poor, help rebuild homes after tornadoes (I am sure you won’t understand the absurdity of this one, but Flagstaff is in the mountains, it is not flat, but we had three tornadoes that took out one of our larger manufactured home parks this fall), help immigrant and lower class men find jobs or start up their own business to support their family and community, and other stuff that isn’t off the top of my head.

What did Obama do? Eh…got ACORN more government money to help poor people evade paying taxes and get grants illegally.

I’m on the side of the poor man and his struggles, I’m a poor man, I’m no narrowback. I’ve been working my hands rough and calloused since I was thigh high on my daddy, able to handle a horse and drive a truck.

[quote]
Politics are about interrests, not some flowery talk about morals and rights and shit, thats used by all sides to hid theire agenda, wich are more control over the cake of society. As I think ZEB said, life aint fear and try to take your share because nobody aint givin it to you. This goes for the working class to and to demand that they should be more modest than the burgeois classes are beyond hypocritical.[/quote]

Yeah, and the thing is that on both sides, it hurts the lower class. Because both fascism and communism turn into despotism. The only person that wins is the government officials and their buddies, whether that be ACORN or Wal-Mart.

I would rather have a minimalistic state, or no federal state, or no state at all with a high level of personal charity to help the poor man out, then to have that and it just end up hurting the poor man. And, it just happens that I’m the poor man that it is hurting.

502

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think, you could also argue that the interest you get on most savings account is so low that it simply maintains your moneys value.[/quote]

It would be irrelevant as your money’s value is being maintained by someone else’s work and thus you are exploiting them. The amount of profit doesn’t make what you are doing, according to his definition, any less exploitation. If I were to only make my slaves pick enough cotton for my family and slaves to subsist on, no profits at all, does that make slavery right? Of course not.

I personally do not think having a savings account or investing is coercing or exploiting anyone, but if he is going to adopt such a standard then this would seem to be an inconsistency for him.

503

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Ryan,

I guess you could call me barbaric in nature, I actually do like fighting. I think it is fun.[/quote]

So do I. It’s in our nature.

[quote]You say the individual would merely exist without society and that is one of the major points. They could exist without society.

But a society cannot exist unless people want to join together and be part of it. The problem with government, and I do mean big business in government and using government, having too much power is that forces he point. Instead of being individuals voluntarily working together, they are forced to conform.[/quote]

But that’s just it–people DO want to join together in societies. This should be obvious. The rise of Facebook and social networking in general is a glaring reminder of just how infuriatingly social human beings are. So, you will have societies, and they will be governed somehow, whether you call it government or you call it the market, or you call it something else.

Let me say that while I do respect your argument from principle, I don’t think there’s any other conclusion than that it is fatally flawed. For one thing, since people will live in societies (many people complain loudly about our government, but few move), they will derive benefits from that society. They don’t even have to do anything. Merely by living in society, you take advantage of the safety it brings, the modern economy present that allows you to eat without farming or hunting for food, the roadways that allow you to easily go from one location to another. Many of these benefits are not tangible, and so you don’t necessarily think of them, but you certainly benefit from them.

So you see, just like a mass of many cells forms an organ which accomplishes a function that no individual cell could accomplish by itself, many people work together to accomplish tasks that would be impossible for any individual. When you realize this, you realize that, economically, it’s basically impossible to talk about an individual apart from his society.

This is not an attack on individual rights. I believe in them strongly. But it IS a recognition that without society, no one would have anything, and so it’s only reasonable to expect everyone to contribute something toward the maintenance of society’s institutions.

Now, your specific argument, about entitlements, falls prey to what I think of as a “book-keeper’s fallacy.” I’ll quote your paragraph, and then respond.

In particular, your statement, “the government should not takeone person’s property to give to another,” in my mind, completely masks the real debate. As stated, I would agree with you: the government should not take your property to give to me, or mine to give to someone else, but then you assume the whole debate away by stating that it is “your property.” That’s the whole argument. There are many (myself included), who would say that when the government taxes, for instance, Paul Allen, for several million dollars, it’s not really his property, especially when he has not really done any work for the vast majority of it. He has benefitted from one of society’s institutions, and the very least that he owes is a contribution to the public welfare proportional to his income. This is the book-keeping aspect of it comes in. It’s like the situation of an employer and an employee. My employer might pay me a wage, but few people would say he has the right to withhold “his property” from me. In that case, it is because it is not really his property–a small portion of his income is due to my work, and so rightfully belongs to me. Yet in the same situation on a larger scale, you say simply because an accountant would record one person paying out the money, that it is illegitimate.

This is not necessarily designed to change your mind, but hopefully it will let you understand how some other people think, and realize that they are not evil for it.

[/quote]

I understand there are differences. But two try to find a balance does not work and to satisfy one alienates the other. So in America I would say a majority of people lie further towards the old founding of our country. More towards a semi-regulated quasi-capitalist establishment. With less government interference, less taxes, more social and community support.

Now you will see I do believe in society and communities helping, but believe it should be through a voluntary relationship. This worked very well through the start of America. My major hang up is with it be a forced proposition using a large centralized government.

My problem with viewing income or property being owned by society is that it inherently violates an individual’s rights.

Here is one proposition I would have, but I know most would not go along. A standard, not deduction flat tax . but with your tax submission you can dictate what percentage you want to go to what part of the budget. If there are parts of the budget that either not funded or under funded, you know that they are not the priority of the society and therefore should not be in the government budget. It would be a small step compromise in retaining the right of voluntary interactions, while still making it societal choice.

504

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
See, the heart of the problem is that our culture pushes the “Get more for less!” mantra so hard and so often its always taken to its conclusion: Get everything for nothing.

So the people at the top find ways to get money without working. The ones at the bottom find ways to get money without working.

Take a society where “Get more for less” is the motto and add in any system and it will be corrupted, abused, and exploited. [/quote]

So what are we to do according to this argument? If no system is better than another due to the input of human beings, are we then saying everyone must become angels? Seems a fairly nihilistic view, but to each his own in that regard. I would propose given demons all around not to give some demons legitimized authority over my own life, but perhaps that is preferable to some.[/quote]

What we’re to do is work to change our cultures values away from worshipping the super rich and towards defining success as personal happiness and a concern for the wellbeing of others.

Again, I know, its nonsense.

505

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So maybe, just maybe, the answer is to change the values of our society away from making a few people very rich and towards seeing every worker make a comfortable living (please, dont start with the “define comfortable?!” stuff again). [/quote]

Yes, put a gun to their heads and tell them to change their values. That has historically always worked.

506

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
See, the heart of the problem is that our culture pushes the “Get more for less!” mantra so hard and so often its always taken to its conclusion: Get everything for nothing.

So the people at the top find ways to get money without working. The ones at the bottom find ways to get money without working.

Take a society where “Get more for less” is the motto and add in any system and it will be corrupted, abused, and exploited. [/quote]

So what are we to do according to this argument? If no system is better than another due to the input of human beings, are we then saying everyone must become angels? Seems a fairly nihilistic view, but to each his own in that regard. I would propose given demons all around not to give some demons legitimized authority over my own life, but perhaps that is preferable to some.[/quote]

What we’re to do is work to change our cultures values away from worshipping the super rich and towards defining success as personal happiness and a concern for the wellbeing of others.

Again, I know, its nonsense. [/quote]

Here is the problem, you think you should be able to define others. People have the right to do or worship whatever they want so long as they are not infringing on other’s natural rights.

But you don’t see it that way, you think society has a the right to tell other what to think or do.

That completely goes against the whole concept of what america is, if that is what you want. Go to any country, that is their MO.

507

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So maybe, just maybe, the answer is to change the values of our society away from making a few people very rich and towards seeing every worker make a comfortable living (please, dont start with the “define comfortable?!” stuff again). [/quote]

Yes, put a gun to their heads and tell them to change their values. That has historically always worked.[/quote]

Yep, stupid strawman argument from the guy who called me “kind of an idiot”. Priceless.

508

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
See, the heart of the problem is that our culture pushes the “Get more for less!” mantra so hard and so often its always taken to its conclusion: Get everything for nothing.

So the people at the top find ways to get money without working. The ones at the bottom find ways to get money without working.

Take a society where “Get more for less” is the motto and add in any system and it will be corrupted, abused, and exploited. [/quote]

So what are we to do according to this argument? If no system is better than another due to the input of human beings, are we then saying everyone must become angels? Seems a fairly nihilistic view, but to each his own in that regard. I would propose given demons all around not to give some demons legitimized authority over my own life, but perhaps that is preferable to some.[/quote]

What we’re to do is work to change our cultures values away from worshipping the super rich and towards defining success as personal happiness and a concern for the wellbeing of others.

Again, I know, its nonsense. [/quote]

Here is the problem, you think you should be able to define others. People have the right to do or worship whatever they want so long as they are not infringing on other’s natural rights.

But you don’t see it that way, you think society has a the right to tell other what to think or do.

That completely goes against the whole concept of what america is, if that is what you want. Go to any country, that is their MO.[/quote]

Society alredy does, and alwys will, tell people what to think and do.

Our society tells us “Make as much money as possible.”

But I am loving the strawman over here too, I never said, nor implied, that I should “be able to define others”.

I end up getting frustrated with these forums because too many people cant just read what someone writes and respond to that, they need to build artistic strawmen and respond to them instead.

509

[quote]JesseS wrote:
How much does a doctor deserve to get paid?

[/quote]
over 9000

510

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So maybe, just maybe, the answer is to change the values of our society away from making a few people very rich and towards seeing every worker make a comfortable living (please, dont start with the “define comfortable?!” stuff again). [/quote]

Yes, put a gun to their heads and tell them to change their values. That has historically always worked.[/quote]

Yep, stupid strawman argument from the guy who called me “kind of an idiot”. Priceless.[/quote]

No what he is saying the force of the government should not be used to force people to change their values. In such you are saying they do not have the right to be.

People should care about others and help others. It should be voluntary not through force. Otherwise they are not really free or independent.

If you choose to be a screwge or miser that is your choice, it should not be forcibly changed. But then others have the right not to interact with you, that is their right.

To be free and independent means you also have a great responsibility and accountability too. some people can’t handle it they would prefer it be the responsibility of the state adn forego their rights.

511

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So maybe, just maybe, the answer is to change the values of our society away from making a few people very rich and towards seeing every worker make a comfortable living (please, dont start with the “define comfortable?!” stuff again). [/quote]

Yes, put a gun to their heads and tell them to change their values. That has historically always worked.[/quote]

Yep, stupid strawman argument from the guy who called me “kind of an idiot”. Priceless.[/quote]

No what he is saying the force of the government should not be used to force people to change their values. [/quote]

And since I never fucking advocated the government being used to force people to change their values, what he’s saying is a fucking strawman argument.

Thanks for playing.

512

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
See, the heart of the problem is that our culture pushes the “Get more for less!” mantra so hard and so often its always taken to its conclusion: Get everything for nothing.

So the people at the top find ways to get money without working. The ones at the bottom find ways to get money without working.

Take a society where “Get more for less” is the motto and add in any system and it will be corrupted, abused, and exploited. [/quote]

So what are we to do according to this argument? If no system is better than another due to the input of human beings, are we then saying everyone must become angels? Seems a fairly nihilistic view, but to each his own in that regard. I would propose given demons all around not to give some demons legitimized authority over my own life, but perhaps that is preferable to some.[/quote]

What we’re to do is work to change our cultures values away from worshipping the super rich and towards defining success as personal happiness and a concern for the wellbeing of others.

Again, I know, its nonsense. [/quote]

Here is the problem, you think you should be able to define others. People have the right to do or worship whatever they want so long as they are not infringing on other’s natural rights.

But you don’t see it that way, you think society has a the right to tell other what to think or do.

That completely goes against the whole concept of what america is, if that is what you want. Go to any country, that is their MO.[/quote]

Society alredy does, and alwys will, tell people what to think and do.

Our society tells us “Make as much money as possible.”

But I am loving the strawman over here too, I never said, nor implied, that I should “be able to define others”.

I end up getting frustrated with these forums because too many people cant just read what someone writes and respond to that, they need to build artistic strawmen and respond to them instead. [/quote]

maybe your society, mine does not.

and you can take your strawman and shove it up your ass, I have none.

I was using your own words and implications,

513

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
See, the heart of the problem is that our culture pushes the “Get more for less!” mantra so hard and so often its always taken to its conclusion: Get everything for nothing.

So the people at the top find ways to get money without working. The ones at the bottom find ways to get money without working.

Take a society where “Get more for less” is the motto and add in any system and it will be corrupted, abused, and exploited. [/quote]

So what are we to do according to this argument? If no system is better than another due to the input of human beings, are we then saying everyone must become angels? Seems a fairly nihilistic view, but to each his own in that regard. I would propose given demons all around not to give some demons legitimized authority over my own life, but perhaps that is preferable to some.[/quote]

What we’re to do is work to change our cultures values away from worshipping the super rich and towards defining success as personal happiness and a concern for the wellbeing of others.

Again, I know, its nonsense. [/quote]

Well it certainly isn’t nonsense, and being a simple man myself I agree with you that idolizing money and the wealthy rather than goodness in people regardless of ‘status’ is an honorable aim we should strive to foster. I also believe that our society is already trending in this direction and there is some evidence to suggest the sentiment already has moved in this direction, at least with younger generations.

One reason I ascribe to libertarianism is that I actually tend to believe in the general good nature of people. No I am not naive and think ALL people are good or even that good people are good all the time. I don’t think you need to legislate against murder, however, to use a colloquialism.

I also believe society and groups are much better at self-organizing and regulating than many give them credit for. It’s like children on a playground. Are there never issues that arise when children play together? Of course not, but by and large they sort it out on their own. As a parent or teacher you only need to step in when someone is truly being physically harmed but otherwise you just hamper the kids ability to enjoy themselves and be creative when you interfere too much (this has been scientifically documented for what that is worth and for what bearing this has on the analogy). If you try to regulate their play based on outlier situations, you just end up hurting more people needlessly in the long term. I don’t think we change that much as we become adults. The games change, but the people generally don’t.

514

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
See, the heart of the problem is that our culture pushes the “Get more for less!” mantra so hard and so often its always taken to its conclusion: Get everything for nothing.

So the people at the top find ways to get money without working. The ones at the bottom find ways to get money without working.

Take a society where “Get more for less” is the motto and add in any system and it will be corrupted, abused, and exploited. [/quote]

So what are we to do according to this argument? If no system is better than another due to the input of human beings, are we then saying everyone must become angels? Seems a fairly nihilistic view, but to each his own in that regard. I would propose given demons all around not to give some demons legitimized authority over my own life, but perhaps that is preferable to some.[/quote]

What we’re to do is work to change our cultures values away from worshipping the super rich and towards defining success as personal happiness and a concern for the wellbeing of others.

Again, I know, its nonsense. [/quote]

Here is the problem, you think you should be able to define others. People have the right to do or worship whatever they want so long as they are not infringing on other’s natural rights.

But you don’t see it that way, you think society has a the right to tell other what to think or do.

That completely goes against the whole concept of what america is, if that is what you want. Go to any country, that is their MO.[/quote]

Society alredy does, and alwys will, tell people what to think and do.

Our society tells us “Make as much money as possible.”

But I am loving the strawman over here too, I never said, nor implied, that I should “be able to define others”.

I end up getting frustrated with these forums because too many people cant just read what someone writes and respond to that, they need to build artistic strawmen and respond to them instead. [/quote]

maybe your society, mine does not.

and you can take your strawman and shove it up your ass, I have none.

I was using your own words and implications,
[/quote]

Oh? Go talk to some people about that baseball player who recently signed with one team over another for less money (not a big sports fan, dont care about the details).

See how many people respond with the notion that he clearly should have gone for more money, without considering he may have had numerous other factors in his decision.

Then could that as one small example of your society telling you that you should make as much money as possible.

515

General comment to everyone here, let’s please be civil. Iron sharpens iron my friends, dialogue is good. Shouting each other down is not very edifying for anyone however.

516

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
See, the heart of the problem is that our culture pushes the “Get more for less!” mantra so hard and so often its always taken to its conclusion: Get everything for nothing.

So the people at the top find ways to get money without working. The ones at the bottom find ways to get money without working.

Take a society where “Get more for less” is the motto and add in any system and it will be corrupted, abused, and exploited. [/quote]

So what are we to do according to this argument? If no system is better than another due to the input of human beings, are we then saying everyone must become angels? Seems a fairly nihilistic view, but to each his own in that regard. I would propose given demons all around not to give some demons legitimized authority over my own life, but perhaps that is preferable to some.[/quote]

What we’re to do is work to change our cultures values away from worshipping the super rich and towards defining success as personal happiness and a concern for the wellbeing of others.

Again, I know, its nonsense. [/quote]

Well it certainly isn’t nonsense, and being a simple man myself I agree with you that idolizing money and the wealthy rather than goodness in people regardless of ‘status’ is an honorable aim we should strive to foster. I also believe that our society is already trending in this direction and there is some evidence to suggest the sentiment already has moved in this direction, at least with younger generations.

One reason I ascribe to libertarianism is that I actually tend to believe in the general good nature of people. No I am not naive and think ALL people are good or even that good people are good all the time. I don’t think you need to legislate against murder, however, to use a colloquialism.

I also believe society and groups are much better at self-organizing and regulating than many give them credit for. It’s like children on a playground. Are there never issues that arise when children play together? Of course not, but by and large they sort it out on their own. As a parent or teacher you only need to step in when someone is truly being physically harmed but otherwise you just hamper the kids ability to enjoy themselves and be creative when you interfere too much (this has been scientifically documented for what that is worth and for what bearing this has on the analogy). If you try to regulate their play based on outlier situations, you just end up hurting more people needlessly in the long term. I don’t think we change that much as we become adults. The games change, but the people generally don’t.
[/quote]

Ok, here’s another idea: Whenever we see tv shows that idolize the rich (Lifestyles of the rich and famous, Cribs, etc) we turn off the damn tv, or change the channel.

(Waiting for Lifty to confuse this suggestion with pointing a gun at someone)

517

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, here’s another idea: Whenever we see tv shows that idolize the rich (Lifestyles of the rich and famous, Cribs, etc) we turn off the damn tv, or change the channel.

(Waiting for Lifty to confuse this suggestion with pointing a gun at someone)[/quote]

Who are you to determine what the values of other people should be?

Even still, how do you propose to change the mindless masses minds considering they don’t have one? Leave the sheep alone.

518

Then consider how we define people based on income, into “lower class”, “middle class”, and “upper class”.

Or the reaction people collectively give to a person with a huge house (and wonder why all those McMansions which harmed the housing market were built)

Or consider the fraudulent advertising many supplement companies will engage in, rationalizing the practice with “We’re a business, we need to make money”.

I know, I know, these are all small examples. But life is a whole bunch of small examples that add up to bigger facts.

519

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, here’s another idea: Whenever we see tv shows that idolize the rich (Lifestyles of the rich and famous, Cribs, etc) we turn off the damn tv, or change the channel.

(Waiting for Lifty to confuse this suggestion with pointing a gun at someone)[/quote]

Who are you to determine what the values of other people should be?

Even still, how do you propose to change the mindless masses minds considering they don’t have one? Leave the sheep alone.[/quote]

Ah, the notion that everyone else is a mindless sheep except you, of course. Never seen taht one before.

The sheep will never be left alone. We can hire sheepherders or wolves. you decide.

We can work to instill values that result in a healthy society, or we can support values that lead to the concentration of massive wealth in a few individuals, with more and more of the poor giving up hope and relying on government assistance.

But who am I to say anything, right?

520

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Then consider how we define people based on income, into “lower class”, “middle class”, and “upper class”.

Or the reaction people collectively give to a person with a huge house (and wonder why all those McMansions which harmed the housing market were built)

Or consider the fraudulent advertising many supplement companies will engage in, rationalizing the practice with “We’re a business, we need to make money”.

I know, I know, these are all small examples. But life is a whole bunch of small examples that add up to bigger facts.[/quote]

But you still miss the larger point:

The only way to change people’s minds is to set the example by living a virtuous life. Talking about it and actually doing it are two separate things. For this reason it takes many generations to make a significant change of “social attitude”.

Personally, I think you are too focused on the collective. You should worry about your own success rather than worry about what the automatons are are watching on TV.