What Do We Owe to Others?

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Sincere question: why don’t those who oppose taxation for, say, socialized healthcare, seem to feel the way about other services that are socialized (such as law enforcement, emergency medical care, firefighters, etc)?[/quote]

Well, because you misstate it from the outset - you conflate “socialized” with “provided by the government”. They are not the same.

It’s a rheotrical trick used (not saying you are doing this) by socialist-minded types.

Whether or not a public service is an example of a “socialized” service or not depends on its policy aim. Is the aim of the government-provided service to redistribute wealth or otherwise make a transfer payment? Police protection, for example, is not “socialist”.

I’m not being semantic just to be ornery - but not every service is a “socialized” one.

@ CappedandPlanit: I agree 100% with your last post. I’ve grown up around EXTREMELY rich people, and EXTREMELY poor people, and everything in between. It’s really baffling/sickening/demoralizing to see the wealthy (from moderately wealthy to uber rich) cling to their money SO hard. It’s just plain old NOT FAIR to take the same amount from a rich guy as from a poor guy.

I think ppl like Sloth here demonstrate that point. They take what I just said - about the unfairness of taxing the poor equal to the rich - and come back with quick little jabs like what he said. “Oh, so tax the rich 80%?” Yeah dude, obviously that’s what we’re saying…Just think for a moment about your comebacks…Nobody would ever propose taxing the rich 80% (or at least hopefully nobody). I’m saying simply that plans like the 999 and other idiotic ideas of that nature are just plain old unfair.

I also understand that capitalism is a very complex machine, and that there are many subtleties that I don’t understand. But how about creating some new jobs and placing more of the burden OFF the backs of the poor and ON the backs of the rich. Not an overwhelming burden that will turn the rich into the poor (that seems like communism sorta) but instead how about the rich people take a bigger hit than they are to help out their brothers?

This goes back to my point about the moral duty of helping those around you. No doubt that tax money doesn’t always go to helping the poor, but come on…

And here’s one quick idea. If you want to create more jobs, make stricter salary worker guidelines. It seems that nowadays companies are losing money, so they hire 1 guy on salary and essentially force him to work 60 hour weeks. Well, if it were stritclty enforced that no person could work over 40 hours, then these companies would HAVE to hire another person to get all their work done. It seems that companies are using the salaried worker to pick up the burden of their work needs without paying him his fair share. I think Marx talked about this a bit, and I agree with him. Create more jobs by enforcing a stricter 40 hour work week, or even reduce it to 36 hours, say. That way companies that want X amount of work done will have to hire 2 people to do the work instead of overworking one poor SOB.

And, as to the replies that I’m sure will come…I think that socialism is probaby a better direction to go from here. Look, free market capitalism seems great, and I’m sure I’ll catch all kinds of shit for expressing my views, but…

Free market capitalism promotes people to be innovative and work hard. The ppl that work hardest and come up with the best products, ideas, etc, will be the ones who profit the most. I agree with Rand that money CAN be the root of all good, if we literally look at free market capitalism. BUT, inevitably the richest/most innovative people dig themselves a niche and establish their dominance. They then begin to exploit others and essentially rule the world. Don’t believe me? Look around. This leads to the current problem being addressed by the Occupy Movement: The 1% fucks the 99%. This is a direct result of free market capitalism.

Free Market Capitalism is a great incentive to work really hard and make strides to come up with cool new products and technology. But it inevitably leads to competition that inevitably leads to economic Darwinism that creates an upper echelon vs everybody else. So, I think that we MUST get rid of this 1% ruling everybody else. The 1% rules and creates laws/systems that benefits themselves. They typically do not care about the 99%, and use them (as Kant would say) as a means to their end. This is the crux of the problem in a nutshell.

Another thing that I find appalling is the Supreme Court’s recent ruling to stop donation caps to campaigns. Yeah, let’s let corporations give as much as they want to politicians, that way when the politicians win they’ll DEFINITELY be in debt to said corporations. Yeah, that should work…God people are so stupid. Say what you want about Obama, but at least he had the balls to criticize the Supreme Court after this horrific decision.

This country is in a sad state. Especially since everybody seems only to care about themselves these days. Instead of trying to hoard your money and act like you’re fiercely independent, look around you. There are people who are dying all around us, who we could help if we wanted to. Give money, or time, or at least thought. Go hand out food at a soup kitchen, or give a dollar to a homeless guy who isn’t on drugs, or help out others in need, be it a friend, relative, or homeless person. Have some G-D fellow feeling. Care about those who you could help. Act like a human being for once. You could’ve been born to a poor family in India, and since you weren’t, you should count your blessings. Gratitude is an action. Show it by doing something for others aroudn you. Get an education and do your best to make a difference.

Oh, and one more thing. Kids in my age group don’t seem to give a flying fuck about what is going on in the world. What’s the deal with apathy? Everybody hates the government, but aint nobody going to do nohing about it? Jeez (I realize that not everybody hates the gov’t). It’s just sad that the only place I can have a conversatino about this type of stuff is in class or on a BBing site, lol.

/Rant until later haahahhaa

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
@ CappedandPlanit: I agree 100% with your last post. I’ve grown up around EXTREMELY rich people, and EXTREMELY poor people, and everything in between. It’s really baffling/sickening/demoralizing to see the wealthy (from moderately wealthy to uber rich) cling to their money SO hard. It’s just plain old NOT FAIR to take the same amount from a rich guy as from a poor guy.

I think ppl like Sloth here demonstrate that point. They take what I just said - about the unfairness of taxing the poor equal to the rich - and come back with quick little jabs like what he said. “Oh, so tax the rich 80%?” Yeah dude, obviously that’s what we’re saying…Just think for a moment about your comebacks…Nobody would ever propose taxing the rich 80% (or at least hopefully nobody).[/quote]

70%?

Lol I gotta hand it to you sloth, you’re pretty funny at least. You sound like my son of a bitch devil’s advocate classmates who listen to the teacher ramble on about something then just come back with something witty.

Anyway, for more proof that the 1% screws the 99% in free market capitalism, look no further than our own gov’t. Do you think the 1% makes decisions based on the 99%'s interests? OF course not. They do things that will benefit themselves and their other elite clsss members. No government official wants to send THEIR kids to war, yet they argue in war’s favor. No government official wants to tax THEIR income heavily, yet they’ll be the first to take more from the poor.

I saw a good picture the other day that read: “Put the politicians on minimum wage and see how fast things change.”

Dare I go to the dec of independence now? This country was founded on the ideas of revolting against tyrannical powers. Maybe the Occupyers are doing something right…

Or how about the Dutch Act of Abjuration?
“And when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their acient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view. And particularly when this is done deliberately, unauthorized by the states, they may not only disallow his authority, but legally proceed to the choice of another prince for their defense. This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives.”

Good for the Dutch. They said the same stuff we said in our Dec. It is our duty, our right, to fight back against tyranny. The gov’t is no longer a democracy when it becomes a tyranny. I hope the FBI doesn’t jump through my window as I’m typing this.

Well, I was being serious though. Let’s say you’d agree that 50% of the wealth of the ‘rich’ should be redistributed. What if I then argue it should be 55%? Have I the moral high ground? What if I guilt-trip you into accepting 55%? However, a passerby–having overhead the conversation-says it should be 60. Is he more moral than us? In our guilt at being morally inferior when it comes to government enforced charity, should we agree to his 60%? And so on and so forth.

[quote]hlss09 wrote:

It’s just plain old NOT FAIR to take the same amount from a rich guy as from a poor guy. [/quote]

It’s also mathematically impossible under our system.

Your problem, of course, is that this is no mere abstract exercise. At some point, we have to pick a tax rate (or set of rates) that reflect our political priorities. So - so if 80% is too high, what is a good number? Because there has to be one, if you are right. So what is it? A range is fine.

Do you actually think there is a gizmo in Washington, DC that has a giant button on it that says “Job Creation - Press Here and Hold” and that no one is pressing it?

The Supreme Court didn’t rule on policy grounds - as in, “hey, corporations are kinda awesome - let’s make sure they get to donate to politicians.” They ruled on political speech grounds - the same politican speech rights that would be available to AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club. Read the opinion.

And, while “corporate personhood” is the cause du jour among angry, half-educated hipsters who have no idea what they are talking about, the real issue is the fact that enormous and intrusive government empowers the special interests (included, but not limited, to hated “rich” to rig the game in their favor.

The argument is wrong, the only Fair way to tax someone is in equal proportion, either consumption or income. That is why in statistics it is called standardization because it standardizes variable based on the absolute values. the idea of taxing at a higher percentage because you make more is not fair, it is progressive, it is unfair and unequal.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Sincere question: why don’t those who oppose taxation for, say, socialized healthcare, seem to feel the way about other services that are socialized (such as law enforcement, emergency medical care, firefighters, etc)?[/quote]

Well, because you misstate it from the outset - you conflate “socialized” with “provided by the government”. They are not the same.

It’s a rheotrical trick used (not saying you are doing this) by socialist-minded types.

Whether or not a public service is an example of a “socialized” service or not depends on its policy aim. Is the aim of the government-provided service to redistribute wealth or otherwise make a transfer payment? Police protection, for example, is not “socialist”.

I’m not being semantic just to be ornery - but not every service is a “socialized” one.[/quote]

If you think that protection has any value, of course it redistributes wealth.

[quote]orion wrote:

If you think that protection has any value, of course it redistributes wealth. [/quote]

Socialism has a specific policy mission - to redistribute wealth in the name of “fairness”. Police protection doesn’t serve that function, because the police protection isn’t tasked with the mission of giving rich people’s stuff to poorer people.

A contract between me and you redistributes wealth - but it isn’t socialism.

@ Sloth: I never said we should give 50% to others. That’s too high IMO. For example, Obama’s asking for a 3% tax increase on the rich I believe. Not 50%. And either way, what you’re doing is called a ‘slippery slope fallacy.’ I understnad your fear that if you give an inch they’ll ask for a mile, but that’s not realistic my friend.
@ Thunderbolt: I’m not sure what the right number is. No doubt that we WILL eventually have to talk about exact percentages, or at least ranges, if we accept my argument. But it doesn’t seem like y’all even accept my argument! Lol. Either way, I could start with Obama’s 3% increase and work from there…

Anyway, I talked to my dad about all this today. We had some good ideas to help the economy and critiques.

#1: Social Security. Social security isn’t taken past $91,000. This is a CLEAR tax break for the rich. Maybe people who make over 91k could contribute an equal amount like you guiys are all arguing for. You want to tax everyone equally, right? Well, why do you give tax breaks to the rich? Yeah, let’s put the burden, once again, on the poor/lower class…It’s just so ass backwards.

#2: Capitalism and its Drawbacks. The capitalist is only concerned with increasing profits for the year. They don’t look to the future in large. They often get rid of employees or replace employees with computerized systems to increase profits. It seems that the fierce capitalist pushes out employees in order to increase the bottom line. Well, this then becomes a self effacing system. Get rid of the employees, get rid of the middle class. Without employees, there will be nobody to buy the products the capitalist is selling! Duh. It seems that the capitalist, insofar as he is mainly concerned with making a higher profit than the previous year, squeezes the middle class out of the picture. The result is less of a customer base to buy the products being sold. Capitalism doesn’t seem to work without help from the government either. Laisses-faire capitalism works for a period of time, but without gov’t aid, it would’ve caused a worse depression than we had in the early part of the 20th century. Bailouts saved capitalism. Clearly, laissez-faire capitalism isn’t so ‘laissez-faire.’

Perhaps if the hardcore capitalist would think a bit more about their future rather than the immediate profits, they’d end up making more in the long run. Come at me bros, lol.

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
@ Sloth: I never said we should give 50% to others. That’s too high IMO. For example, Obama’s asking for a 3% tax increase on the rich I believe. Not 50%. And either way, what you’re doing is called a ‘slippery slope fallacy.’ [/quote]

Fine, I’ll propose it then. Now I have the moral high ground.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
@ Sloth: I never said we should give 50% to others. That’s too high IMO. For example, Obama’s asking for a 3% tax increase on the rich I believe. Not 50%. And either way, what you’re doing is called a ‘slippery slope fallacy.’ [/quote]

Fine, I’ll propose it then. Now I have the moral high ground.
[/quote]

If you are paying that amount you might just be right

lol

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
I just attended a lecture by one of my GSIs (graduate student instructors). He talked about a lot of things, but mainly about how EVERYBODY who makes enough money to live comfortably should give a much more substantial percentage of their money to help others.

He mentioned that he estimates that a basic necessity (in this country) is around 20,000 dollars. That’s low honetly. But, regardless, he said that anybody who does not make 20,000 dollars should be helped. We should institutionally tax people more in order to help these people.

I can already hear the uproar! I felt the same way until I heard more of his argument. He talked less about the how and more about the why of the issue. Instead of who should receive the money, how we could implement higher taxes, etc…he talked about our moral duty to others. He borught up a lot of good points.

His first example brought up how ~25,000 kids die EVERY DAY from things that are easily preventable, such as diarrheal infections, etc. He said that a 15 cent drink packet could cure this kind of sickness and save lives. He then asked how we can justify spending 3 dollars on a latte when 15 cents would SAVE a life?

Now, I’m usually oppose to bleeding heart liberal mumbo jumbo. Every college student out here loves to get on a soapbox and preach for equality, yap yap yap. But, he really did make a good point. He is not arguing that we should give up the things we enjoy, or even all of our excesses. He just says that if, for example, you make 100,000 a year and live comfortably, then maybe you should be taxed more (taxed being equivalent to charitable donations).

Maybe instead of the ~15,000 you’d be taxed now, you should be taxed ~30,000. Yes, that sucks. But if you think about how your cutting out some things strategically (like trips to starbucks when you can brew your own coffee, or perhaps a cheaper car), then how can you really deny that this argument holds weight?

I’m going to look into ways to help in my own way. I don’t think that after what I heard that I could justify inaction. I’m not talking about throwing bottles at Wall Street investors, but rather donating a few dollars to organizations that I look into, or volunteering to help people.

After all, if you’re priveleged then it seems that you have a duty to help people who are less privileged. Namely, because nobody chooses to be born to a poor family, or born to a drug addicted mother, or to be born into a life in which you HAVE to work and can’t go to school.

Obviously my point of view lies in the message, but I’d like to hear what you guys think. Not so much about the problems of institutionalizing taxation at a higher rate, but instead of the moral duty we do (or don’t) have to others.
[/quote]

What field is your GSI in? Philosophy?

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
@ Sloth: I never said we should give 50% to others. That’s too high IMO. For example, Obama’s asking for a 3% tax increase on the rich I believe. Not 50%. And either way, what you’re doing is called a ‘slippery slope fallacy.’ [/quote]

Fine, I’ll propose it then. Now I have the moral high ground.
[/quote]

If you are paying that amount you might just be right

lol[/quote]

Oh, no. I’m safe from being counted among the wealthy. For now.

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
The argument is wrong, the only Fair way to tax someone is in equal proportion, either consumption or income. That is why in statistics it is called standardization because it standardizes variable based on the absolute values. the idea of taxing at a higher percentage because you make more is not fair, it is progressive, it is unfair and unequal.

[/quote]

You get one hot dog a day, as all your food. I get sixteen full meals (meat, vegetable, starch, dessert, all in generous portions) a day. Please tell me you would think it “fair” for us to each be required to share half our food.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Sincere question: why don’t those who oppose taxation for, say, socialized healthcare, seem to feel the way about other services that are socialized (such as law enforcement, emergency medical care, firefighters, etc)?[/quote]

Well, because you misstate it from the outset - you conflate “socialized” with “provided by the government”. They are not the same.

It’s a rheotrical trick used (not saying you are doing this) by socialist-minded types.

Whether or not a public service is an example of a “socialized” service or not depends on its policy aim. Is the aim of the government-provided service to redistribute wealth or otherwise make a transfer payment? Police protection, for example, is not “socialist”.

I’m not being semantic just to be ornery - but not every service is a “socialized” one.[/quote]

Then why have I always heard “healthcare provided by the government” referred to as “socialized healthcare”?

CappedandPlanit, you’re good in my book!

My GSI got his undergrad degree in something I’m not sure what, got a master’s in philosophy, and is currently finishing up his grad school dissertation in philosophy. He’s also VERY versed in economics, politics, and peace & conflict. He’s way smarter than 99.999% of people I’ve ever known.

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
CappedandPlanit, you’re good in my book!

My GSI got his undergrad degree in something I’m not sure what, got a master’s in philosophy, and is currently finishing up his grad school dissertation in philosophy. He’s also VERY versed in economics, politics, and peace & conflict. He’s way smarter than 99.999% of people I’ve ever known. [/quote]

Sounds look an idiot you have a crush on…BOOM roasted.

Don’t you DARE boom roast me lol. That is MY move, stolen from the one and only Michael Gary Scott of course.

PS can someone link me to the supreme court decision mentioned here stopping caps on political contributions. Thx.