Who do you REALLY side with?
-
I like this thread.
Here is a web site that allows you to enter your income, and it spits out a chart that shows where your tax money goes and how much they take, it's pretty cool. Basically all my income so far this year went to federal taxes. But from here on out I get to keep what I earn (less state taxes, sales taxes, etc). Pretty sad really.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
thrash;326636 wrote:
You need to get over this "let them die" bullshit.Why is socialized medicine only good for this country? Suppose we get whatever healthcare system you want in place here. Why doesn't it extend coverage to people in Africa? How many Africans are you willing to let die? You're really not willing to lift a finger to help them? What kind of jerk are you?
I know where you are coming from on this. I really do. Maybe I should have been more clear: This country already spends more than most on the public portion of healthcare. I truly believe we would spend LESS and have LESS coming out of each of our pockets in a universal multi-payer system than what we currently spend.
Maybe a better way would be a tax rebate for $X amount of dollars (not sure what that amount will actually be, so I don't want to throw a "real" number at it yet... basically enough to cover one year of basic premium) if you opt into one of the healthcare programs offering AT LEAST a pre-defined minimum level of coverage. Each family would get this every year on January 1st. If you failed to have insurance during the next 12 months you owe all or a portion of that back on the following years taxes. If you don't want the coverage, you simply send the rebate back to the government within 45 days and there is no penalty. You can always opt for better coverage as long as it meets a minimum standard.
I think we all realize that right or wrong there is going to be a welfare program in this country regardless of what any of us wants. There is always going to be "free" healthcare to the very poor who qualify for assistance.
I was clear about my obligations -- or lack therof -- in the first post.
Yes, It is more moral for me to sit by and do NOTHING to help someone than it is to allow you to HURT and STEAL from me when I've done nothing wrong!
I really don't have anything more to add here.
What i want is for people to help each other. But i want to be clear about the ground rules -- I cannot be legally COMPELLED to help someone. I have no obligation to do so.
I'm pretty sure you are being legally obligated to do so already via Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs that have been deemed constitutional. I forget who it was from the Cato Institute, but I was watching Fox the other day and this guy came on and said "I don't believe it is constitutional to have the individual mandate, especially when they had the opportunity to just extend Medicare for everyone which has been deemed constitutional" (paraphrased).
If i have an obligation to help people, as you seem to claim, what releives me of that obligation? Am I allowed to sleep? Am I allowed to eat until I am full? Am I always required to lift heavy objects for weaker people? Do I need to keep fixing people's computers for free? How much time am I allowed to spend playing with my kids when there are needy people nearby?
Again, maybe I worded it poorly and maybe I was looking at it from a what it costs the government now for healthcare vs what it might cost with my idea.
If you concede the principle that I must sacrifice for the good of others, then all is lost.
Again, I completely understand where you are coming from. 100%. In principle I agree with you (I think I've said this before). In REALITY the odds of being in a society without government is less that .00000000000001% People will always prop up others to lead/protect them. ALWAYS. About 520 years ago people started settling this land (more if you count native americans...) to be "free" and in 1775 they started a movement to make themselves free of foreign rule. The first thing they did was organize and sacrifice for the good of themselves and others. They went to war, but first they established a basic government.
So yes, in principle you are right, you shouldn't NEED to sacrifice for the good of others, but society, any REAL society (Why does this sound like a fast & furious quote??) will eventually "require" it, even though it may be morally wrong to do so.
This claim that i have an obligation to help based on the neediness of others is Crazy. It's crazy because it's moral condemnation bullshit -- its not even an acheivable guideline. I could spend every waking second of my life and every dollar of my income giving my all for everyone. And there'd still be suffering. You could take 100% of my income and just $2 more could feed some kid in africa for 10 years. If you took everything someone, would still find that I should work 1 more hour per day to feed 30 more kids.
See above, I understand the point you are making. And I don't disagree with it in principle.
It IS moral to "let" someone suffer because suffering is infinite! No matter what I do, I can never stop everyone's suffering! If the suffering of others places a moral burden on me, how can any human being anywhere be moral? How can there even be virtue? Every second of my existance I "let" someone die -- and so do you!
Good point. I have no counter.
Do you want a system of government who's premise is infinite sacrifice? Because that's what your sacrificial standard of morality is. Hopefully you never get what you're asking for good and hard - like so many of the people who got socialized medicine BEFORE the countries in your dinky chart.
We already have a system of government who's premise is infinite sacrifice. I have many friends who live in countries with socialized medicine. Most of whom used to live in the US. Most of whom prefer that system over ours.
I have not wronged someone by "letting" them die. But you HAVE wronged me by stealing from me.
What have I personally stolen from you? You made a choice (a sacrifice if you will) by choosing to live here. You could choose to live anywhere on earth, including a remote desert island with your friends who share your ideals and started your ideal society. But YOU chose to live in a country that forces you to pay taxes to support all sorts of social programs... heck, even our military by definition would be a social program.... tax dollars go in to fund a system of protection for the good of the whole country. It doesn't get much more social than that.
How do you think I got that money? By spending my fucking hours working. You know how much time I get to spend with my kids? Not enough. Know how much time I get to spend with my wife? Not enough. I spend time working because I need to to serve myself and to serve society. When you dock my paycheck for your emotionally-driven pity parties, you're keeping me away from my kids. You're keeping me from donating as much to church. You are disrespecting my family, and you are taking a giant shit on the entire concept of work, value, and life.
I share those EXACT same feelings and face the exact same issues as you. But like I said, I think MY approach would be less of a financial burden than the current system. My system may be wrong/flawed, but so is the current one. I think we can BOTH agree on that.
You think what you're advocating is moral? What have I ever done to you? What gives you the audacity to think what you're proposing is acceptable?
mor·al   [mawr-uhl, mor-]
adjective- of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
- expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
- founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
- capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
- conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
100% moral. No, probably not. MORE moral than our current system? Yes.
Can we at least agree that our current system could be better?
Can we also agree that the overall likelihood of EVER getting 100% away from taxes and distributed wealth is about the same and finding out that we have found a winning lottery ticket.... from another planet...and that we actually will be able to drive our car from our planet to their planet to redeem it?
Can we agree that the current system will never go away, but can be changed?
Can we agree that even if we do change it, there is virtually zero chance of it not distributing wealth or funding some form of social program for the perceived "good" of all?
Can we agree that all humans are immoral and even in a truly free society people will form some form of government to protect them from others, which will lead to some form of taxation and redistribution?
If we can, then I can concede your basis of my idea being immoral in principle and your moral idea being impractical in practice.
-
DaveH;326641 wrote:
I like this thread.Here is a web site that allows you to enter your income, and it spits out a chart that shows where your tax money goes and how much they take, it's pretty cool. Basically all my income so far this year went to federal taxes. But from here on out I get to keep what I earn (less state taxes, sales taxes, etc). Pretty sad really.
That is kinda neat/disturbing, but not all that surprising. From what I can tell, starting today (literally) I get to keep everything I make. I was surprised that Medicare was lower than income security (which I'm assuming is unemployment taxes) and military. FWIW, I'm 100% in favor of making unemployment benefits an optional coverage that you can opt in/out of via a private system.... much like disability insurance, etc...
Social security I'm ok with weaning us off of as well and privatizing... or at least making it optional. Not sure how I'd do it without completely destroying the funding for the currently retired individuals who rely on the system that they paid into their whole life.
-
TJ: i think it's worth pointing out that there was no social welfare of any kind prior to 1930, no federal income tax prior to 1913..
We had a much freer society at one point in history. Why can't we have one again? People just have to want it. Part of getting people to want it is to discuss the current situation and the other possibilities with them frankly.
If you say, "yes, but over 50% of Americans are entirely dependant on the state and are net leeches on the system", you'd be right. And this is certainly an impediment to progress. This is why it is important to understand the inherent immorality of the current situation, and what the correct moral destination is. There is no way forward without common ground on morality, principles, objectives, etc.
Once we establish that the military industrial complex, oil companies, welfare recipients, etc... do not DESERVE the subsidies they receive via theft (called "taxation" by some), then it is a straightforward matter to end such practices. Once we understand that we have no moral obligation to support these entities against our will, and that we have the power and the moral high ground, we can figure out a way out of this mess and a way forward.
These things will end one way or another. The current system is unsustainable. The people are misinformed and the demogogues depend on this. The social safety net is wearing thin as we speak. We can engineer as soft of a transition as possible if we accept the inevitability of disaster. If we pretend that what we're doing is both sustainable and morally justifiable, the house of cards will surely collapse.
-
thrash;326648 wrote:
TJ: i think it's worth pointing out that there was no social welfare of any kind prior to 1930, no federal income tax prior to 1913..We had a much freer society at one point in history. Why can't we have one again? People just have to want it. Part of getting people to want it is to discuss the current situation and the other possibilities with them frankly.
If you say, "yes, but over 50% of Americans are entirely dependant on the state and are net leeches on the system", you'd be right. And this is certainly an impediment to progress. This is why it is important to understand the inherent immorality of the current situation, and what the correct moral destination is. There is no way forward without common ground on morality, principles, objectives, etc.
Once we establish that the military industrial complex, oil companies, welfare recipients, etc... do not DESERVE the subsidies they receive via theft (called "taxation" by some), then it is a straightforward matter to end such practices. Once we understand that we have no moral obligation to support these entities against our will, and that we have the power and the moral high ground, we can figure out a way out of this mess and a way forward.
These things will end one way or another. The current system is unsustainable. The people are misinformed and the demogogues depend on this. The social safety net is wearing thin as we speak. We can engineer as soft of a transition as possible if we accept the inevitability of disaster. If we pretend that what we're doing is both sustainable and morally justifiable, the house of cards will surely collapse.
I can agree with most of this. We actually had an income tax in 1861 to help pay for the costs of the civil war. Our current income tax (16th Amendment) was ratified (some say unconstitutionally, though it has passed supreme court scrutiny) in 1913. As a representative government we chose people who decided that this was best for the good of the country (which is kind of what the basis of a representative government is all about) and there is literally no way that you, I or anyone else will be able to put that genie back in the bottle. We can wish it away, we can want it to go away but it will still be there. All we can do is shape what we have, little by little.
I honestly believe that my system is less intrusive on your wallet than the current system. Thereby making it less immoral than what we already have.
For those keeping track at home, the federal government funded itself with tariffs (primarily) prior to the start of income tax. Our current system is seeing less and less tariffs on imports/exports as we are trying to compete on a global scale with virtually all of our goods and services.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a link supporting the >50% of Americans are entirely dependent on the system portion of above? I know lots of people and very very few are ENTIRELY dependent on the system... though I do know a few that do qualify as net leeches (taking in more than they pay out), and most of them are not poor people.
-
... its because it's nowhere near 50%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_dependency#Measuring_dependency
Measuring dependency
The United States Department of Health and Human Services defines ten indicators of welfare dependency:[23]
Indicator 1: Degree of Dependence, which can be measured by the percentage of total income from means-tested benefits. If greater than 50%, the recipient of welfare is considered to be dependent on it for the purposes of official statistics.
Indicator 2: Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance and Labor Force Attachment, or what percentage of recipients are in families with different degrees of labor force participation.
Indicator 3: Rates of Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance, or the percentage of the population receiving TANF, food stamps, and SSI.
Indicator 4: Rates of Participation in Means-Tested Assistance Programs, or the percentage of people eligible for welfare benefits who are actually claiming them.
Indicator 5: Multiple Program Receipt, or the percentage of recipients who are receiving at least two of TANF, food stamps, or SSI.
Indicator 6: Dependence Transitions, which breaks down recipients by demographic characteristics and the level of income that welfare benefits represented for them in previous years.
Indicator 7: Program Spell Duration, or for how long recipients draw the three means-tested benefits.
Indicator 8: Welfare Spell Duration with No Labor Force Attachment, which measures how long recipients with no one working in their family remain on welfare.
Indicator 9: Long Term Receipt, which breaks down spells on TANF by how long a person has been in receipt.
Indicator 10: Events Associated with the Beginning and Ending of Program Spells, such as an increase in personal or household income, marriage, children no longer being eligible for a benefit, and/or transfer onto other benefits.
In 2005, the Department estimated that 3.8% of the American population could be considered dependent on welfare, calculated as having more than half of their family’s income coming from TANF, food stamps, and/or SSRI payments, down from 5.2% in 1996.[24] As 15.3% of the population was in receipt of welfare benefits in 2005, it follows that approximately one-quarter of welfare recipients are considered dependent as per the official measures. In general, measures of welfare dependence are assessed alongside the statistics for poverty in general.[25]
Government measures of welfare dependence include welfare benefits associated with work. If such benefits were excluded from calculations, the dependency rate would be lower.[26] -
Jim;326652 wrote:
... its because it's nowhere near 50%.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_dependency#Measuring_dependency
Measuring dependency
The United States Department of Health and Human Services defines ten indicators of welfare dependency:[23]
Indicator 1: Degree of Dependence, which can be measured by the percentage of total income from means-tested benefits. If greater than 50%, the recipient of welfare is considered to be dependent on it for the purposes of official statistics.
Indicator 2: Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance and Labor Force Attachment, or what percentage of recipients are in families with different degrees of labor force participation.
Indicator 3: Rates of Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance, or the percentage of the population receiving TANF, food stamps, and SSI.
Indicator 4: Rates of Participation in Means-Tested Assistance Programs, or the percentage of people eligible for welfare benefits who are actually claiming them.
Indicator 5: Multiple Program Receipt, or the percentage of recipients who are receiving at least two of TANF, food stamps, or SSI.
Indicator 6: Dependence Transitions, which breaks down recipients by demographic characteristics and the level of income that welfare benefits represented for them in previous years.
Indicator 7: Program Spell Duration, or for how long recipients draw the three means-tested benefits.
Indicator 8: Welfare Spell Duration with No Labor Force Attachment, which measures how long recipients with no one working in their family remain on welfare.
Indicator 9: Long Term Receipt, which breaks down spells on TANF by how long a person has been in receipt.
Indicator 10: Events Associated with the Beginning and Ending of Program Spells, such as an increase in personal or household income, marriage, children no longer being eligible for a benefit, and/or transfer onto other benefits.
In 2005, the Department estimated that 3.8% of the American population could be considered dependent on welfare, calculated as having more than half of their family’s income coming from TANF, food stamps, and/or SSRI payments, down from 5.2% in 1996.[24] As 15.3% of the population was in receipt of welfare benefits in 2005, it follows that approximately one-quarter of welfare recipients are considered dependent as per the official measures. In general, measures of welfare dependence are assessed alongside the statistics for poverty in general.[25]
Government measures of welfare dependence include welfare benefits associated with work. If such benefits were excluded from calculations, the dependency rate would be lower.[26]Are you saying that Limbaugh, Hannety and Beck have been lying to me? How dare you!
-
Ok, so I was overzealous when i said "entirely dependant". There are a few data points that are right around that 50% mark, as the very first graph shows.
- roughly 50% pay no net federal income taxes
- roughly 50% are on some kind of government assistance program
Regarding #1, i was wondering what this data looked like historically. I found this:
from here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html
Can you argue that about 50% of households are dependant, to some degree, on government handouts? Yes. Entirely Dependant? Probably not, although there's certainly a definitional aspect of that question.
The point is: there are a lot of people who rely, to varying degrees, on gubmint handouts. They are the benficiaires of an immoral set of coercive arrangements.
A friend of mine is a brilliant laser physcist at a public university. She posted a link complaining about the lack of federal science funding. She was pretty hostile towards my suggestion that her salary and research was paid for by money taken from people against their will.
It's not just people on the poor end of the spectrum who are "bought in" to the current wealth-transfer based system and who don't want to see it go anywhere. Almost everyone can convince themselves that them getting a slice of other people's money is a great thing.
Few attempt to claim that how they receive this money is ethical. Instead, they typically try to rationalize that it is ok, or that everyone steals from everyone else, or that nobody ever acheived anything without government help.
Whether it is 5% or 50%, the immorality of coercive wealth redistribution is the core issue. Activities which further canonize the legitimacy of the principle of wealth transfer must be opposed, even if in practice they claim to be more fiscally effective and to immorally transfer less actual wealth.
IOW, TJ, even if I agreed that what you're proposing would save money (which I don't, btw :)), I have to oppose it because it moves us in the wrong direction ideology wise. I'm prepared to accept a lower standard of living for an increased standard of morality.
-
Two quick situations that I can think of that have happened to me personally in the past week or two...
-
Had a cold, went to the walk-in clinic. They open at 8am, I arrived at 11am. Gave the lady my medical insurance card and my debit card to pay for my co-pay. Their CC machine was down, but this was the first they had noticed it because I was the first person to NOT be on government medical assistance that morning. The waiting room was packed, and it took me two hours to see a doctor. This was absolutely mind blowing to me.
-
I have a good friend who is a social worker, and I was all fired up one day about some statistics I read about the rampant abuse of the welfare system (like withdrawing EBT money at casinos and strip clubs, etc...), so I brought this discussion up with her. She noted that there is a VERY small percentage of the total number of welfare recipients that are classified as chronic welfare users (less then 5% here in Minneapolis). The vast majority of people are ashamed to take food stamps and such and thus gtfo of the situation as quickly as possible. She said that it mostly serves as a safety net for people who make bad choices (like saving money, wasting it on stupid shit etc...) and they fall in and out of the system.
The huge increase in dependence on government handouts in the past few years can largely be put on the democratic extentions of unemployment benefits (which is whole-heartededly disagree with). My proposal would be to treat unemployment the same as the welfare system. Instead of giving people free-reign money, give them food stamps. On unemployment for an extended period of time? Move to section 8 housing. Want to extend your benefits? Mandatory temp work (which often leads to perm. positions). Now tell me that wouldn't light a fire under people's asses to go out and actually take a job. There's plenty of jobs available, but often times it pays better to stay on unemployment.
Look, I'm not talking about the eliminating the safety net for short-term, emergency type use... I'm talking about these shits who sit downtown all day long, wearing $100 shoes, talking on a $500 cell phone, and still collect government handouts like it's owed to them.
Edit: Also, I was shocked by the 50% not paying Federal income tax. What. The. Fuck?
-
-
Well said Jim.
-
‎10 mins. ago I am waiting in line at the gas station with two different women in front of me. Woman A.) Gets waters and pops, pays EBT, Then gets cigarrettes and cigarellos with cash. Woman B.) Gets a starbucks capaccino, pays Ebt. Pays cash for Marb reds. Then says that shes going to the bar tonight and "Gunna get fucked up". Really? Got money for Cigarettes and Booze but not for everything else.
-
Not surprised here:
95%
Ron Paul
I side with Ron Paul on issues of Domestic policy, the Economy, Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Immigration, Social, and the Environment. More info77%
Gary Johnson
I side with Gary Johnson on issues of Domestic policy, Healthcare, and Social. More info74%
R. Lee Wrights
I side with R. Lee Wrights on issues of Domestic policy, Foreign Policy, the Economy, and Healthcare. More info69%
Mitt Romney
I side with Mitt Romney on issues of Immigration and Science. More info52%
Buddy Roemer
I side with Buddy Roemer on issues of Immigration. More info25%
Jimmy McMillan
I side with Jimmy McMillan on issues of Immigration. More info21%
Kent Mesplay
I do not side with Kent Mesplay on any major issues. More info7%
Barack Obama
I do not side with Barack Obama on any major issues. More info1%
Fred Karger
I do not side with Fred Karger on any major issues. More infoWho you side with by party...
89% Libertarian
31% Republican
21% Green
7% Democratic
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login