[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We agree on politicians or anyone for that matter that thinks they can predict the future, (even the climate). I personally do not feel a responsibility to the poor and the lazy, I personally feel taking care of the poor and lazy is a better alternative than not.
[/quote]
Well then the only option you have left is private charity, that has very little to do with altruism though.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Aha!
So the next time a politician argues that something is necessary for the greater good, the question that you should immediately ask yourself is this:
How does he know? Is this something a human being can know?
The thing is that he cannot know, but it makes for a great argument when it comes to subsidies, bailouts or any other redistributions of income.
Utilitarianism started out as a way to objectively measure how much “good” something would do. That was a brilliant idea that failed for reasons Bentham could not have foreseen, but it ended as the moral underpinning of “liberalism”, i.e as a secular religion.
The problem with altruism and this is what utilitarianism becomes if the numbers are large enough, postulates a moral duty to help others and to work for the greater good, even if, as you noticed yourself, no one knows how to measure this greater good.
If you think it through it even implies that other people have the moral duty to make you help others, at gunpoint if need be.
Altruism might be a great addition to influence the decisions of mature, fully developed adults, but politicians and governments need simpler rules, for obvious reasons.
Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, and so on.
Now that was an excellent post. How WOULD some ‘genius’ know what is the greatest good? Would it be a panel composed of philosopher-kings…kind of like the Politburo?
[/quote]
Na, the idea was much simpler, but really elegant.
Bentham called it “utilitarianism” for a reason. He wanted to find a way to measure a subjective feeling like happiness, or to be precise, utility, and wanted to find an objective way of measuring it.
This way, if utility function were cardinal and if you could compare it between persons you could OBJECTIVELY determine whether a measure proposed by parliament maximized utility or not. His search for the meter of happiness, the “util” was an attempt to make that happen.
It also was highly impartial, he did not care WHAT made someone happy, therefore he used the technical term “utility”.
I really like that approach, it would have been an objective, measurable, public ethical system that left as much room for the individual to pursue his/her goals as possible.
Unfortunately Pareto destroyed the theoretical premises of his theory but the idea was brilliant.
Of course Mills fucked it all up and the result is as you describe it.
Most people call it socialism, though it is really misunderstood utilitarianism.
Of course there is a system that constantly furthers the welfare of all participants, it is called the free market.
Quite frankly most utilitarians would have to be quasi-libertarians if they understood basic economics, which they don´t, which is in turn quite entertaining, given that they owe their whole ethical system to an economic principle.
[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
We agree on politicians or anyone for that matter that thinks they can predict the future, (even the climate). I personally do not feel a responsibility to the poor and the lazy, I personally feel taking care of the poor and lazy is a better alternative than not.
Well then the only option you have left is private charity, that has very little to do with altruism though.
[/quote]
With out welfare, the poor would be in a bad way. Crime would sky rocket compared to what it is today. I do not feel it a responsibility to help the poor, I feel it a better alternative. It may be altruistic to want the best for society as a whole. I just can not buy the virtues of being selfish. Some day I will read Ayn Rand.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
1)Factory Jobs got outsourced to places with sweatshop labor like China, Indonesia, etc.
The Right wing thermidorians on the list are going to blame the Unions. The truth is unions were built because laissez-faire capitalism treated workers like shit. In any case, no way an American worker compete against the shit wages of the Chinese worker.
What’s left? Managerial jobs to manage the outsourced work force and service jobs, to make the managerial class feel good.
I am exaggerating some, but this is pretty much the scenario.
Trickle down, basically pummeled down a whole lot of people.
[/quote]
Not far wrong there, which is why despite having an honours degree in Chemistry specialising in quantum chemical theory I am working running a BPO. Much more money and job security.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
We agree on politicians or anyone for that matter that thinks they can predict the future, (even the climate). I personally do not feel a responsibility to the poor and the lazy, I personally feel taking care of the poor and lazy is a better alternative than not.
Well then the only option you have left is private charity, that has very little to do with altruism though.
With out welfare, the poor would be in a bad way. Crime would sky rocket compared to what it is today. I do not feel it a responsibility to help the poor, I feel it a better alternative. It may be altruistic to want the best for society as a whole. I just can not buy the virtues of being selfish. Some day I will read Ayn Rand.
[/quote]
And I will gladly say it again, that is wrong.
You only need to look at England, 100 years ago. No government welfare and about 2% of todays crime rates.
It also has a psychological effect if you feel to need to pay for the poor. If you have a code of ethics that demands that you help them, they can demand your help if they share your beliefs. See, that way, if their life sucks, it is because you, society or who or whatever else have failed them and they will hate you.
If they believed that no one was responsible for themselves but themselves, they might get their ass to work and be grateful instead of spiteful if they get some help.
Your very idea of altruism and public welfare shapes society in a very bad way.
[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
We agree on politicians or anyone for that matter that thinks they can predict the future, (even the climate). I personally do not feel a responsibility to the poor and the lazy, I personally feel taking care of the poor and lazy is a better alternative than not.
Well then the only option you have left is private charity, that has very little to do with altruism though.
With out welfare, the poor would be in a bad way. Crime would sky rocket compared to what it is today. I do not feel it a responsibility to help the poor, I feel it a better alternative. It may be altruistic to want the best for society as a whole. I just can not buy the virtues of being selfish. Some day I will read Ayn Rand.
And I will gladly say it again, that is wrong.
You only need to look at England, 100 years ago. No government welfare and about 2% of todays crime rates.
It also has a psychological effect if you feel to need to pay for the poor. If you have a code of ethics that demands that you help them, they can demand your help if they share your beliefs. See, that way, if their life sucks, it is because you, society or who or whatever else have failed them and they will hate you.
If they believed that no one was responsible for themselves but themselves, they might get their ass to work and be grateful instead of spiteful if they get some help.
Your very idea of altruism and public welfare shapes society in a very bad way.
[/quote]
Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that you are being selfish for society’s sake? I believe our crime rate would rival that if we did not have this expanded set of laws called the war on drugs
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
We agree on politicians or anyone for that matter that thinks they can predict the future, (even the climate). I personally do not feel a responsibility to the poor and the lazy, I personally feel taking care of the poor and lazy is a better alternative than not.
Well then the only option you have left is private charity, that has very little to do with altruism though.
With out welfare, the poor would be in a bad way. Crime would sky rocket compared to what it is today. I do not feel it a responsibility to help the poor, I feel it a better alternative. It may be altruistic to want the best for society as a whole. I just can not buy the virtues of being selfish. Some day I will read Ayn Rand.
And I will gladly say it again, that is wrong.
You only need to look at England, 100 years ago. No government welfare and about 2% of todays crime rates.
It also has a psychological effect if you feel to need to pay for the poor. If you have a code of ethics that demands that you help them, they can demand your help if they share your beliefs. See, that way, if their life sucks, it is because you, society or who or whatever else have failed them and they will hate you.
If they believed that no one was responsible for themselves but themselves, they might get their ass to work and be grateful instead of spiteful if they get some help.
Your very idea of altruism and public welfare shapes society in a very bad way.
Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that you are being selfish for society’s sake? I believe our crime rate would rival that if we did not have this expanded set of laws called the war on drugs
[/quote]
That is a good point, the more behavior you criminalize, the more “criminals” you get. That does not account for all of it though.
Your first question is harder. I am saying that an ethical system where you have no duty to help anyone else leads to a stronger, healthier society, whereas an ethical system that makes it a moral duty to help anyone worse off then you makes you anybodies slave who is less successful than you.
The first alternative also contains the possibility of doing more than your duty, aka charity, the second idea makes everything your moral duty.
Let´s put it this way:
I think it is best if a government recognizes anybodies God given right to be a selfish bastard, knowing full well that most people aren´t.
[quote]orion wrote:
I think it is best if a government recognizes anybodies God given right to be a selfish bastard, knowing full well that most people aren´t.
[/quote]
It seems to me that a lot of liberals are just incredibly cynical people. They see the millions Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc have donated, they see the good all the major charities do, and they STILL insist that unless the government puts a gun to our heads, nobody will help the destitute.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
orion wrote:
I think it is best if a government recognizes anybodies God given right to be a selfish bastard, knowing full well that most people aren´t.
It seems to me that a lot of liberals are just incredibly cynical people. They see the millions Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc have donated, they see the good all the major charities do, and they STILL insist that unless the government puts a gun to our heads, nobody will help the destitute.[/quote]
I think there is a difference between charity and not punishing people for being poor. Our tax code beats middle income Americans to death, and because the poor do not pay as much income tax the Middle Americans feel the poor are getting Charity. When it is the very wealthy that are getting all the breaks
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think there is a difference between charity and not punishing people for being poor. Our tax code beats middle income Americans to death, and because the poor do not pay as much income tax the Middle Americans feel the poor are getting Charity. When it is the very wealthy that are getting all the breaks
[/quote]
How do you figure? Maybe you should actually look at tax stats before posting ridiculous shit like this. Unless you think the top 5% of income earners are middle income.
All the info you need is out, you just have to look.
To the OP’s original question, What happened to America? From my perspective as a small business owner…
Ever try to hire someone who wants a job and not just a paycheck?
Ever hire someone who shows up everyday and does what they were hired to do?
Ever hire someone and pay them what you agreed to pay them and listen to them bitch that if they had more money they would do more work?
Ever hire someone who didn;t make every excuse in the book as to why they can’t work today?
Ever hire someone who dresses appropriately to give your company a good name?
Ever hire someone who takes pride in doing a good job?
Ever hire someone who is willing to go over and above to promote themselves?
Ever hire someone who looks after what is best for the company first? As what is the best for the company is usually what is best for them?
Ever hire someone who comes to work everyday with a good attitude?
Ever hire someone whose attitude is “Woe is me”
And I could go on and on…
And you still want to ask, “What is wrong with America?”
What is wrong with America is we are lazy, greed, self-centered, egotistical, cry babies(maybe a little overstated).
I still love my country and I refuse to fall into one of those categories. I will continue to work my ass off 60-70 a week out of town 3 weeks out of the month to provide for myself and my family. And when I get rich, it will be because I earned it. And if I can find people who will help me to my goal, then they will have a chance at it too.
And Thank You for serving our country and allowing me to say and do the things I do.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think there is a difference between charity and not punishing people for being poor. Our tax code beats middle income Americans to death, and because the poor do not pay as much income tax the Middle Americans feel the poor are getting Charity. When it is the very wealthy that are getting all the breaks
How do you figure? Maybe you should actually look at tax stats before posting ridiculous shit like this. Unless you think the top 5% of income earners are middle income.
All the info you need is out, you just have to look.[/quote]
What tax stats are you talking about? I am talking about multi national corporations and their top executives that know how to shelter income. It does not take much figuring.
Are you one of those people that feel if we take care of the wealthy they will take care of us? Your arguments are pretty predictable. Do you believe them to be true, or are you just playing Devils advocate.
[quote]danc2469 wrote:
To the OP’s original question, What happened to America? From my perspective as a small business owner…
Ever try to hire someone who wants a job and not just a paycheck?
Ever hire someone who shows up everyday and does what they were hired to do?
Ever hire someone and pay them what you agreed to pay them and listen to them bitch that if they had more money they would do more work?
Ever hire someone who didn;t make every excuse in the book as to why they can’t work today?
Ever hire someone who dresses appropriately to give your company a good name?
Ever hire someone who takes pride in doing a good job?
Ever hire someone who is willing to go over and above to promote themselves?
Ever hire someone who looks after what is best for the company first? As what is the best for the company is usually what is best for them?
Ever hire someone who comes to work everyday with a good attitude?
Ever hire someone whose attitude is “Woe is me”
And I could go on and on…
And you still want to ask, “What is wrong with America?”
What is wrong with America is we are lazy, greed, self-centered, egotistical, cry babies(maybe a little overstated).
I still love my country and I refuse to fall into one of those categories. I will continue to work my ass off 60-70 a week out of town 3 weeks out of the month to provide for myself and my family. And when I get rich, it will be because I earned it. And if I can find people who will help me to my goal, then they will have a chance at it too.
And Thank You for serving our country and allowing me to say and do the things I do.
[/quote]
I hope you are well compensated
Try living in michigan.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think there is a difference between charity and not punishing people for being poor. Our tax code beats middle income Americans to death, and because the poor do not pay as much income tax the Middle Americans feel the poor are getting Charity. When it is the very wealthy that are getting all the breaks
How do you figure? Maybe you should actually look at tax stats before posting ridiculous shit like this. Unless you think the top 5% of income earners are middle income.
All the info you need is out, you just have to look.
What tax stats are you talking about? I am talking about multi national corporations and their top executives that know how to shelter income.
[/quote]
Go look at what % of tax revenue is collected from the top 5% of income earners.
Nothing you say takes much figuring. You should start figuring a bit more. It’s all irrational bullshit with nothing to back it up.
What do you mean by taking care of the rich? You mean letting them keep more of the money they rightfully earned? Yes, I would like everyone to benefit from the fruits of their labor. what a bastard, I know.
If I thought you were capable of following along, I would outline what happens when you let the investment class keep more of their income. You would have to willingly use logic and reason and we’ve all seen how difficult that can be for you.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think there is a difference between charity and not punishing people for being poor. Our tax code beats middle income Americans to death, and because the poor do not pay as much income tax the Middle Americans feel the poor are getting Charity. When it is the very wealthy that are getting all the breaks
How do you figure? Maybe you should actually look at tax stats before posting ridiculous shit like this. Unless you think the top 5% of income earners are middle income.
All the info you need is out, you just have to look.
What tax stats are you talking about? I am talking about multi national corporations and their top executives that know how to shelter income.
Go look at what % of tax revenue is collected from the top 5% of income earners.
It does not take much figuring.
Nothing you say takes much figuring. You should start figuring a bit more. It’s all irrational bullshit with nothing to back it up.
Are you one of those people that feel if we take care of the wealthy they will take care of us? Your arguments are pretty predictable. Do you believe them to be true, or are you just playing Devils advocate.
What do you mean by taking care of the rich? You mean letting them keep more of the money they rightfully earned? Yes, I would like everyone to benefit from the fruits of their labor. what a bastard, I know.
If I thought you were capable of following along, I would outline what happens when you let the investment class keep more of their income. You would have to willingly use logic and reason and we’ve all seen how difficult that can be for you.
[/quote]
With the time limitations I do have considered, please explain to me how the multination corp. executives pay a higher tax rate than the middle class American .Please indulge me. I promise to ask you to explain if I do not understand
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think there is a difference between charity and not punishing people for being poor. Our tax code beats middle income Americans to death, and because the poor do not pay as much income tax the Middle Americans feel the poor are getting Charity. When it is the very wealthy that are getting all the breaks
How do you figure? Maybe you should actually look at tax stats before posting ridiculous shit like this. Unless you think the top 5% of income earners are middle income.
All the info you need is out, you just have to look.
What tax stats are you talking about? I am talking about multi national corporations and their top executives that know how to shelter income.
Go look at what % of tax revenue is collected from the top 5% of income earners.
It does not take much figuring.
Nothing you say takes much figuring. You should start figuring a bit more. It’s all irrational bullshit with nothing to back it up.
Are you one of those people that feel if we take care of the wealthy they will take care of us? Your arguments are pretty predictable. Do you believe them to be true, or are you just playing Devils advocate.
What do you mean by taking care of the rich? You mean letting them keep more of the money they rightfully earned? Yes, I would like everyone to benefit from the fruits of their labor. what a bastard, I know.
If I thought you were capable of following along, I would outline what happens when you let the investment class keep more of their income. You would have to willingly use logic and reason and we’ve all seen how difficult that can be for you.
With the time limitations I do have considered, please explain to me how the multination corp. executives pay a higher tax rate than the middle class American .Please indulge me. I promise to ask you to explain if I do not understand
[/quote]
If you are talking about individual American citizens, I don’t understand why you think there is something funny going on.
Any rich American choosing not to pay taxes is not at the expense of any of us. It?s their money. Are they any worse than those that chose not to work and pay taxes, but instead sit at home and collect on our money? At least the tax dodger isn’t taking my money in the process.
If you are talking about the corporations themselves, blame IRS enforcement and ridiculous tax code. I blame the corporations for doing everything they can to keep more of their money, as much as I blame myself for taking dependant credits and investing in 401K.
Corporations paying taxes is the worst economic policy I have heard of. It intentionally puts US companies at a competitive disadvantage. I cannot fault multinational corporations for paying as little as possible. They are competing with international companies.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think there is a difference between charity and not punishing people for being poor. Our tax code beats middle income Americans to death, and because the poor do not pay as much income tax the Middle Americans feel the poor are getting Charity. When it is the very wealthy that are getting all the breaks
How do you figure? Maybe you should actually look at tax stats before posting ridiculous shit like this. Unless you think the top 5% of income earners are middle income.
All the info you need is out, you just have to look.
What tax stats are you talking about? I am talking about multi national corporations and their top executives that know how to shelter income.
Go look at what % of tax revenue is collected from the top 5% of income earners.
It does not take much figuring.
Nothing you say takes much figuring. You should start figuring a bit more. It’s all irrational bullshit with nothing to back it up.
Are you one of those people that feel if we take care of the wealthy they will take care of us? Your arguments are pretty predictable. Do you believe them to be true, or are you just playing Devils advocate.
What do you mean by taking care of the rich? You mean letting them keep more of the money they rightfully earned? Yes, I would like everyone to benefit from the fruits of their labor. what a bastard, I know.
If I thought you were capable of following along, I would outline what happens when you let the investment class keep more of their income. You would have to willingly use logic and reason and we’ve all seen how difficult that can be for you.
With the time limitations I do have considered, please explain to me how the multination corp. executives pay a higher tax rate than the middle class American .Please indulge me. I promise to ask you to explain if I do not understand
If you are talking about individual American citizens, I don’t understand why you think there is something funny going on.
Any rich American choosing not to pay taxes is not at the expense of any of us. It?s their money. Are they any worse than those that chose not to work and pay taxes, but instead sit at home and collect on our money? At least the tax dodger isn’t taking my money in the process.
If you are talking about the corporations themselves, blame IRS enforcement and ridiculous tax code. I blame the corporations for doing everything they can to keep more of their money, as much as I blame myself for taking dependant credits and investing in 401K.
Corporations paying taxes is the worst economic policy I have heard of. It intentionally puts US companies at a competitive disadvantage. I cannot fault multinational corporations for paying as little as possible. They are competing with international companies.
[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think there is a difference between charity and not punishing people for being poor. Our tax code beats middle income Americans to death, and because the poor do not pay as much income tax the Middle Americans feel the poor are getting Charity. When it is the very wealthy that are getting all the breaks
How do you figure? Maybe you should actually look at tax stats before posting ridiculous shit like this. Unless you think the top 5% of income earners are middle income.
All the info you need is out, you just have to look.
What tax stats are you talking about? I am talking about multi national corporations and their top executives that know how to shelter income.
Go look at what % of tax revenue is collected from the top 5% of income earners.
It does not take much figuring.
Nothing you say takes much figuring. You should start figuring a bit more. It’s all irrational bullshit with nothing to back it up.
Are you one of those people that feel if we take care of the wealthy they will take care of us? Your arguments are pretty predictable. Do you believe them to be true, or are you just playing Devils advocate.
What do you mean by taking care of the rich? You mean letting them keep more of the money they rightfully earned? Yes, I would like everyone to benefit from the fruits of their labor. what a bastard, I know.
If I thought you were capable of following along, I would outline what happens when you let the investment class keep more of their income. You would have to willingly use logic and reason and we’ve all seen how difficult that can be for you.
With the time limitations I do have considered, please explain to me how the multination corp. executives pay a higher tax rate than the middle class American .Please indulge me. I promise to ask you to explain if I do not understand
If you are talking about individual American citizens, I don’t understand why you think there is something funny going on.
Any rich American choosing not to pay taxes is not at the expense of any of us. It?s their money. Are they any worse than those that chose not to work and pay taxes, but instead sit at home and collect on our money? At least the tax dodger isn’t taking my money in the process.
If you are talking about the corporations themselves, blame IRS enforcement and ridiculous tax code. I blame the corporations for doing everything they can to keep more of their money, as much as I blame myself for taking dependant credits and investing in 401K.
Corporations paying taxes is the worst economic policy I have heard of. It intentionally puts US companies at a competitive disadvantage. I cannot fault multinational corporations for paying as little as possible. They are competing with international companies.
[/quote]
I am not sure what part of this you are wanting me to read here? I understand what tax shelters are.
You said the middle class was getting beat to death becuase the poor and super rich were not paying taxes.
I suggested you look at actually collection statistics to see who was actually paying.
Then you said the piece about multi-national corps and their executives knowing how to avoid taxes. I wasn’t sure if you meant the individual executives not paying taxes or they were mearly acting on behalf of the corp and the corp was the only one not paying the tax. Either way, I don’t see how this effects the middle class.
Let’s take a step back. How do you define middle class? What do multinational corportations have to do with the fleecing of the middle class?