Logic Should Prevail

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
to ZEB.

Lets pretend we buy your idea that the welfare state and a progressive tax system is not logical and harmful for the society.
Whats your solution, and try to bring in some empiric data to make your case stronger. That would make this discussion much more interesting.

( this is not a joke or sarcasm btw )
[/quote]

I am merely stating that what we are doing makes no logical sense and never has. Do you agree with that premise? If not then show me where it is wrong.
[/quote]

Your premis is neither right or wrong, it cant be because it is a creation of your mind, but I give you this. Within your premis its sounds logical. The problem however is that in the real world its way more complex. People get welfare checks, because they are to sick to work, there are no jobs for them, or they are old. When it comes to the case that welfare is equal to the lowest payed jobs, the only logical solution is to either force the salarys for the lowest payd jobs up a bit or bring the welfare checks down a bit. Thats the only logical solution. When it comes to progressive taxes, its not a matter of logic, its a matter of understanding of fairness. For some regressive taxes are more fair( saletax as an example ), for others flat taxes are most fair and for others again progressive taxes are most fair. I myself think progressive taxes are most fair, because I think the “after ability, after need” is a good principle. When it comes to big institutions, you have to be a bit more specific. If you are talking about the militarycomplex, shure thats pure evil, but if you are talking about public schools, I dont agree.

thats my 2cents take it or leave it.

42

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
As you said, nothing is “cut and dry”

Empirically speaking:

Countries without some sort of “unemployment” safety net general have much more volatile markets and gross employment.

Countries that don’t have progressive tax systems have poorer middle and lower classes (duh).

Countries with low gun control have (gasp!) more gun deaths. [/quote]

All 3 above are false.
[/quote]

The problem with using logic is some people base theirs around incorrect assumptions.

43

[quote]florelius wrote:

Your premis is neither right or wrong, it cant be because it is a creation of your mind, but I give you this. Within your premis its sounds logical. The problem however is that in the real world its way more complex.[/quote]

No more complex than the human mind. More on that later.

This is what the government has told you, but this is not the full story. As you know there are generations of people who have been collecting welfare checks. Children have grown up watching their parents and grandparents collect free money from the government and they think that this is how they should live as well. Have we done something good for these people? I think not. Nor did any of it ever make sense…but we keep doing it.

Wrong, you do NOT touch salaries. You leave the market place alone. Paying people anything even close to what they would make on a real job will encourage many to not work. Free money is easier then money that you have to work for. And human beings are built to avoid pain and seek pleasure. This is the component of the human being which is being ignored. And it’s being ignored because of politics! “Good Americans want jobs”. Some do, but many Americans, like any other human beings will gravitate toward what is easiest. And that my friend is sucking on the government tit.

Wrong again, when do we toss aside logic to lust toward some politicians idea of fairness? How foolish and it is exactly how we got into the mess that we are in.

That’s because you are currently thinking like one of the brainwashed masses who have been told that in order to be “fair” people who work hard and get ahead should be penalized. Not only unfair but also illogical.

(eye roll) Okay this will probably be our last post.

44

What Zeb is talking about reminds me of the short story of Harrison Bergeron.
If you’re not familiar with it, I recommend reading it.
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

45

Logically do you get more or less of something that is taxed? When a behavior is punished you get less of that behavior. When it is rewarded you get more of it.

If the above is true and it has always been true since there were people on earth then how does the following make sense:

1-Punishing those who start businesses.

2-Rewarding those who refuse to work.

How is this logical, or a good way to run a country?

46

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

Your premis is neither right or wrong, it cant be because it is a creation of your mind, but I give you this. Within your premis its sounds logical. The problem however is that in the real world its way more complex.[/quote]

No more complex than the human mind. More on that later.

your premise was simplistic compared to reality.

This is what the government has told you, but this is not the full story. As you know there are generations of people who have been collecting welfare checks. Children have grown up watching their parents and grandparents collect free money from the government and they think that this is how they should live as well. Have we done something good for these people? I think not. Nor did any of it ever make sense…but we keep doing it.

please post some evidence for this claim, also some evidence to show the magnitude of freeloading.

Wrong, you do NOT touch salaries. You leave the market place alone. Paying people anything even close to what they would make on a real job will encourage many to not work. Free money is easier then money that you have to work for. And human beings are built to avoid pain and seek pleasure. This is the component of the human being which is being ignored. And it’s being ignored because of politics! “Good Americans want jobs”. Some do, but many Americans, like any other human beings will gravitate toward what is easiest. And that my friend is sucking on the government tit.

You wanted to talk logic, I offered you the two logically options to deal with it.

Wrong again, when do we toss aside logic to lust toward some politicians idea of fairness? How foolish and it is exactly how we got into the mess that we are in.

the point was that, this is a matter of personal understanding of fairness, not logic.

That’s because you are currently thinking like one of the brainwashed masses who have been told that in order to be “fair” people who work hard and get ahead should be penalized. Not only unfair but also illogical.

Then we disagree on what a fair tax system looks like, this was my point all along. If we are
to discuss whats the most beneficial tax system for the society as a hole, then we are moving towards a different discussion.

(eye roll) Okay this will probably be our last post.

You have a problem with me for thinking that a instiution whos objective is to invade and kill is “evil”. then i must go “eye roll”

[/quote]

47

Fairness is not logical. The world isn’t fair.

48

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sometimes I really wish all of this partisan bickering would come to an end. I wonder why in 2011 we can’t just look at things logically instead of always through the standard political process.

Forget you are either a republican or a democrat and look at the following thoughts in a logical manner:

Does it really make sense to pay someone to stay home? The government takes money from people who earn it and gives it away to someone and all they have to do is NOT work. You can call it unemployment insurance, or welfare, or any number of government programs from HUD to food stamps. Who is ever encouraged to go out and get a job when you pay them to do the very opposite? [/quote]

When you put it like that, no. But when you put it like that you are phrasing and oversimplifying the argument in a way that there can be no debate against you.

You have simply stated a few of your views and said that they are facts and that anyone disagreeing with you is wrong? How is that any different from any of the debate within this forum

But I appreciate what you’re trying to do. Honestly.

49

here is a link about the SSA in the us, I know wikipedia is not the best source
out there, but its better than nothing. If someone disagrees with the info in my link, they can provide
a better source.

here is another one.

50

Anyway, I know this is probably something simple and well-known but I’m still young and learning these things so it’s new to me. The cause of this discussion was that my brother said he’d like to only work 4 days/wk instead of 5. More ‘me time’. I mentioned how the gov’t wastes a lot of the money they receive in taxes. The more you’re taxed the less you have, so if you want to maintain/increase your standard of living you have to work more(lose more of your life so to speak).
It made me realize that if the gov’t didn’t waste so much in taxes, most people would have a higher standard of living while being able to work less and enjoy life more.
Does this add up the same in reality?

51

[quote]florelius wrote:

You have a problem with me for thinking that a instiution whos objective is to invade and kill is “evil”. then i must go “eye roll”
[/quote]

Yeah I have a big problem with anyone who condemns the US military. You can make any claims you want about the politicians who control said military. But the US military IS NOT an evil institution. For you to make such a blanket indictment tells me more about you than the object of your condemnation. Without the US military we would be living in a very different world right now. And I assure you, you wouldn’t like it. Stop posting for a few months and catch up on your world history. Begin with Adolph Hitler and go from there.

If you post again, and I hope you don’t, I want to know:

1-What country you’re from

2-How old you are

3-If you’ve ever known anyone who has served in the US military.

You’ve made a very serious error and that should not go unnoticed by anyone reading this thread.

52

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sometimes I really wish all of this partisan bickering would come to an end. I wonder why in 2011 we can’t just look at things logically instead of always through the standard political process.

Forget you are either a republican or a democrat and look at the following thoughts in a logical manner:

Does it really make sense to pay someone to stay home? The government takes money from people who earn it and gives it away to someone and all they have to do is NOT work. You can call it unemployment insurance, or welfare, or any number of government programs from HUD to food stamps. Who is ever encouraged to go out and get a job when you pay them to do the very opposite? [/quote]

When you put it like that, no. But when you put it like that you are phrasing and oversimplifying the argument in a way that there can be no debate against you.

You have simply stated a few of your views and said that they are facts and that anyone disagreeing with you is wrong? How is that any different from any of the debate within this forum

But I appreciate what you’re trying to do. Honestly.[/quote]

Yes, I’m aware of what I’ve said. And to date not one single poster has even tried to rebut my argument. They’ve only attacked the premise with nothing behind it. You, I’m sorry to say, have certainly done nothing more than this.

53

I’m not attacking the premise. You have simplified the idea of welfare to the point of gross exaggeration.

NO ONE is saying that welfare should be allowing people to live well to the extent a job is not a good idea. But what if there are no jobs to be found? SOME people might say it is the duty of the state to provide a safety net UNTIL they find another job. SOME people might say that’s not the way to do things

There is no right answer. There are different opinions. And your phrasing of the argument means that if we argue against you we are arguing to pay people to stay at home, which is not what people advocating welfare (generally) are saying.

Let me put it another way. If I said “Does it really make sense to create a huge power vacuum in the Middle East (which Iran will fill) on the basis of reasons spurious at best and downright lying at worst, and create a nuclear power race between countries in the Middle East” would you say that is adequate representation of the War on Terror. No because it isn’t it is one person’s VIEW (not mine) of it. But I have phrased the argument in the such away that in any way arguing against me, you are arguing for geopolitical devastation.

That’s what you’ve done with this thread

54

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Anyway, I know this is probably something simple and well-known but I’m still young and learning these things so it’s new to me. The cause of this discussion was that my brother said he’d like to only work 4 days/wk instead of 5. More ‘me time’. I mentioned how the gov’t wastes a lot of the money they receive in taxes. The more you’re taxed the less you have, so if you want to maintain/increase your standard of living you have to work more(lose more of your life so to speak).
It made me realize that if the gov’t didn’t waste so much in taxes, most people would have a higher standard of living while being able to work less and enjoy life more.
Does this add up the same in reality?[/quote]

There is a fair amount of waste in govt, as there is in any institution. I have had a job were my job was to find every avenue of cost savings. Many of the ways to reduce cost are small on their own an so often overlooked/ignored. Sometimes because habit allows for them. Other times because the amount in and of itself does not seem worth the effort to those who make the decisions.

Some “waste” in govt goes to pay for things we do not or are not supposed to know about. All black ops are off the books and have to paid for some way. Also, especially in the military, the true costs overrides, of say planes, are compensated for by really expensive toilets from the same contractor. So the question is the waste in the expensive toilets or in the fact the plane costs far more than advertised.

However, there is much that can be done with the tax code and collections that would help a lot of the leakage as well.

I found an overriding reason for much of the waste (and this is based on my experience) is the reluctance of people to change how they do their job - this is not the institutions reluctance but the workers - and with streamlining there is the loss of jobs - which is generally unpopular.

55

When we talk about logic here, we do so with the understanding that logic is culturally specific, correct? And so we are speaking specifically about the United States, correct?

56

Again, and I repeat, there is never a right answer when it comes to policy decisions.

People are far to quick to take the economic view that taxes are “dead weight loss”, when it’s damn near impossible to quantify the savings of living in a stable an educated society, with community and distribution infrastructure that ensures almost 0 “real loss” of products and services.

57

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

You have a problem with me for thinking that a instiution whos objective is to invade and kill is “evil”. then i must go “eye roll”
[/quote]

Yeah I have a big problem with anyone who condemns the US military. You can make any claims you want about the politicians who control said military. But the US military IS NOT an evil institution. For you to make such a blanket indictment tells me more about you than the object of your condemnation. Without the US military we would be living in a very different world right now. And I assure you, you wouldn’t like it. Stop posting for a few months and catch up on your world history. Begin with Adolph Hitler and go from there.

If you post again, and I hope you don’t, I want to know:

1-What country you’re from

2-How old you are

3-If you’ve ever known anyone who has served in the US military.

You’ve made a very serious error and that should not go unnoticed by anyone reading this thread.

[/quote]

Its my opinion, deal with it. I am btw no fan of any institution that invade others, be it Usa, Russia or Norway for that matter.

All the info you want about me is in my hub.

blind patriotism is not based on logic btw, I thougt that was the point of this tread to discuss this issues from a perspective of logic and open mindedness.

If you want to question my character, history skills etc, or in other words make shit personal, our discussion is over. If we keep on track with the original argument without making it personal, we can continue.

the ball is in your court.

58

[quote]Bambi wrote:
I’m not attacking the premise. You have simplified the idea of welfare to the point of gross exaggeration.[/quote]

Then explain exactly what it is in reality. Leave out the use of meaningless words of emotion.

What if? Can you prove that little assertion of yours? When someone is being paid $425 per week to NOT work, for example, why would that same individual take a job making roughly the same amount of money? The person in question will most likely keep taking the money for doing nothing as it is the easiest path and psychologically he avoids the “pain” of work.

Yes, the brain washed masses may say such a thing. But how is that logical? Once again if big brother is taking care of you, your desire to find said job is greatly reduced. That is a FACT (with most people).

Indeed the IS a correct answer. However, there is no right “political” answer.

Then stop saying it. Most don’t even know why they’re saying it, yet they say it anyway because they have been conditioned to think that way. When an able bodied man loses his job he should immediately be rewarded to go find another one, not rewarded to avoid work.

Think of it this way; if someone were laid off and the government stepped in and gave the person who lost their job a $1000 bonus to go find another one within say 3 weeks. How much of a positive impact would that alone have on the economy? Now what if we ran everything in such a logical manner? No pandering, no alleged “fairness or unfairness” just do what works based upon sound psychological principals. Are you big enough to think outside the box?

[quote]Let me put it another way. If I said “Does it really make sense to create a huge power vacuum in the Middle East (which Iran will fill) on the basis of reasons spurious at best and downright lying at worst, and create a nuclear power race between countries in the Middle East” would you say that is adequate representation of the War on Terror. No because it isn’t it is one person’s VIEW (not mine) of it. But I have phrased the argument in the such away that in any way arguing against me, you are arguing for geopolitical devastation.

That’s what you’ve done with this thread[/quote]

Not true, what I’ve done with this thread is at least try to make a few people realize that what we’re doing is not only not working, it is actually working against us. It is tantamount to someone claiming that in order to get lean and strong they are going to lay on their couch eating Dorito’s all day. There is not even ONE good reason to think that will work. Nor is there even ONE good reason to think that paying people to stay home whether you call it welfare or extended unemployment has worked.

As I said in my first post there are other issues that are not as cut and dry. Geopolitical involvement is far more complicated. However, with enough study a logical plan could be instituted there as well.

59

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
When we talk about logic here, we do so with the understanding that logic is culturally specific, correct? And so we are speaking specifically about the United States, correct?[/quote]

Yes.

60

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Anyway, I know this is probably something simple and well-known but I’m still young and learning these things so it’s new to me. The cause of this discussion was that my brother said he’d like to only work 4 days/wk instead of 5. More ‘me time’. I mentioned how the gov’t wastes a lot of the money they receive in taxes. The more you’re taxed the less you have, so if you want to maintain/increase your standard of living you have to work more(lose more of your life so to speak).
It made me realize that if the gov’t didn’t waste so much in taxes, most people would have a higher standard of living while being able to work less and enjoy life more.
Does this add up the same in reality?[/quote]

Well, let us assume for a moment that utility is ordinal and not in any measurable way transferable between human beings.

That would lead us with only one perfect hypothetical outcome, the Pareto maximum. The market always chases it, but, since it is a moving target never quite reaches it. THe reason for that is because the Pareto optimum is defined as the point where noone can be made better off without making someone else worse off. As long as people trade on their free will they are at least ex ante always better off. Since the Pareto optimum shifts as soon as the trade is completed it is never actually reached.

Now if government steps in and does something with the same amount of money utility is lost. True, the same amount of money is spent, but that translates into less utility because if people had actually wanted what the government is offering they would have bought it themselves.

The reason why this happens is that individual utility goes up if you spend other peoples money on yourself, whereas overall utility goes down.

Second thing is that a welfare state punishes economic sucess while it rewards economic failure. As always, if you punish something you get less than you would otherwise, if you subsidize it you get more. That leads to less economic growth than you would have had otherwise which compounds year after year after year.

Cliff notes: Government interference destroys wealth per definition (as in, the definition of utility) and the welfare state saps enough energy out of the market that the rising tide does not lift all boats as fast as it could have which means that after a few decades the poor are far worse off than they would have been otherwise.