The welfare state

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have a well defined and controlled target.

I'm also against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have checks in place to judge and quantify actual RESULTS(not intent).

I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that are hand-outs instead of hand-ups. The purpose of programs such as these is to help, not make them reliant.

CsG

I'm against "Involuntary wealth transfer schemes" PERIOD. Do you even realize what you're saying? "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme"=THEFT. A thug who puts a gun to my chest and takes my wallet is inititating an "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme" with a very specific and clearly defined target (himself) with 100% delivery results. Does that make it alright? Or is it still THEFT?

I say it's still THEFT, THEFT is wrong and should not be ENDORSED, SPONSORED or PERPETRATED by the government who's job it is to PROTECT me from such things.

Jason

Yes, I understand what I'm saying. However, you have to realize that we do have a social structure in place and the gov't does have a limited responsibility for Society. However, as you are well aware - the socialist have taken this "limited" responsibility and have used that opening to put their programs in place.
Have they gone too far? Have we allowed them to go too far? Absolutely, but we do have to allow the gov't to take care of their limited social responsibility.

Now the second part of the equation is more of what I think you were trying to address - the way the funds change hands. Are payroll and income taxes "involuntary"? Absolutely. You don't have a choice in that. However if we went to a more consumer based revenue system, the collection would become less "involuntary".

<-covers ears and waits for the gnashing of teeth and shrill shrieks from the left to start.


CsG

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Condor

[...]

Minimum wage - the liberals solution to everything economic. All that minimum wage does in an economy is set the baseline of income. You move minimum wage up and you move the baseline up. Inflation reacts and the increase is null. Minimum wage actually costs opportunity.

Additionally, a study was conducted in 1999 on minimum wage effectiveness. Targeting seems the main issue. Of all those receiving a minimum wage increase, only 17% actually realized any real direct benefits on their households. The other 83% are either working teens or 2nd/3rd income family members.

One proposed solution revolves around tax cuts and subsidies along the lines of Earned Income Credit. In this respect, persons requiring the most assistance, so to speak, would actually receive the most direct benefit.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have a well defined and controlled target.

I'm also against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have checks in place to judge and quantify actual RESULTS(not intent).

I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that are hand-outs instead of hand-ups. The purpose of programs such as these is to help, not make them reliant.

CsG

I'm against "Involuntary wealth transfer schemes" PERIOD. Do you even realize what you're saying? "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme"=THEFT. A thug who puts a gun to my chest and takes my wallet is inititating an "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme" with a very specific and clearly defined target (himself) with 100% delivery results. Does that make it alright? Or is it still THEFT?

I say it's still THEFT, THEFT is wrong and should not be ENDORSED, SPONSORED or PERPETRATED by the government who's job it is to PROTECT me from such things.

Jason

Yes, I understand what I'm saying. However, you have to realize that we do have a social structure in place and the gov't does have a limited responsibility for Society. However, as you are well aware - the socialist have taken this "limited" responsibility and have used that opening to put their programs in place.
Have they gone too far? Have we allowed them to go too far? Absolutely, but we do have to allow the gov't to take care of their limited social responsibility.

Now the second part of the equation is more of what I think you were trying to address - the way the funds change hands. Are payroll and income taxes "involuntary"? Absolutely. You don't have a choice in that. However if we went to a more consumer based revenue system, the collection would become less "involuntary".

<-covers ears and waits for the gnashing of teeth and shrill shrieks from the left to start.


CsG

Sounds more like you got bashed by the right to me. your view seems fairly moderate to me. Most of the left would agree that responsible reform of the welfare state is a necessity. It most certainly has not lived up to its intent. There is definitely waste and it does have the undesired affect of acting as a free ride for the newly unemployed.

No bashing coming from the left here. Conservative politicians that hold to a more moderate view like what you describe on welfare reform could hold a very useful and enlightnening discussion with moderate politicians from the left on actually accomplishing useful welfare reform in the US.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: Condor

[...]

Minimum wage - the liberals solution to everything economic. All that minimum wage does in an economy is set the baseline of income. You move minimum wage up and you move the baseline up. Inflation reacts and the increase is null. Minimum wage actually costs opportunity.

Additionally, a study was conducted in 1999 on minimum wage effectiveness. Targeting seems the main issue. Of all those receiving a minimum wage increase, only 17% actually realized any real direct benefits on their households. The other 83% are either working teens or 2nd/3rd income family members.

One proposed solution revolves around tax cuts and subsidies along the lines of Earned Income Credit. In this respect, persons requiring the most assistance, so to speak, would actually receive the most direct benefit.

I doubt he would be approve of that either since the EIC is income redistribution.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have a well defined and controlled target.

I'm also against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have checks in place to judge and quantify actual RESULTS(not intent).

I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that are hand-outs instead of hand-ups. The purpose of programs such as these is to help, not make them reliant.

CsG

I'm against "Involuntary wealth transfer schemes" PERIOD. Do you even realize what you're saying? "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme"=THEFT. A thug who puts a gun to my chest and takes my wallet is inititating an "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme" with a very specific and clearly defined target (himself) with 100% delivery results. Does that make it alright? Or is it still THEFT?

I say it's still THEFT, THEFT is wrong and should not be ENDORSED, SPONSORED or PERPETRATED by the government who's job it is to PROTECT me from such things.

Jason

Yes, I understand what I'm saying. However, you have to realize that we do have a social structure in place and the gov't does have a limited responsibility for Society. However, as you are well aware - the socialist have taken this "limited" responsibility and have used that opening to put their programs in place.
Have they gone too far? Have we allowed them to go too far? Absolutely, but we do have to allow the gov't to take care of their limited social responsibility.

Now the second part of the equation is more of what I think you were trying to address - the way the funds change hands. Are payroll and income taxes "involuntary"? Absolutely. You don't have a choice in that. However if we went to a more consumer based revenue system, the collection would become less "involuntary".

<-covers ears and waits for the gnashing of teeth and shrill shrieks from the left to start.


CsG

Sounds more like you got bashed by the right to me. your view seems fairly moderate to me. Most of the left would agree that responsible reform of the welfare state is a necessity. It most certainly has not lived up to its intent. There is definitely waste and it does have the undesired affect of acting as a free ride for the newly unemployed.

No bashing coming from the left here. Conservative politicians that hold to a more moderate view like what you describe on welfare reform could hold a very useful and enlightnening discussion with moderate politicians from the left on actually accomplishing useful welfare reform in the US.

Ah, but this to me isn't just about "traditional" welfare that people think about - to me it's an all encompassing idea. I'd also be willing to bet that our definitions of "limited" are quite far apart

CsG

 

[Tom]

"#1 - IT'S MY MONEY, NOT YOURS! "


That's isn't really accurate. I know it's the most common reason people give for being against government spending, but that doesn't make it an correct statement.


Money is a way to measure economic activity. Work is one part of an economic system, but it isn't the whole thing.

The pay a person receives for doing work, or the profit a person receives for investing capital, are in part based on the larger economic system they are a part of. So the money you "earn" before you've paid your share of the cost for the whole economic system, isn't really "YOURS", only part of it is. Part of it comes from the fact that your part of a larger eonomic system.

So if you're willing to look at that reality, then it's possible to make rational decisions about what the entire economic system should look like, what things add to the overall success of the system, what things don't.

If we look at the real world, it's obvious that countries that just let poor people starve to death, aren't the most economically successful countries.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: Condor

[...]

Minimum wage - the liberals solution to everything economic. All that minimum wage does in an economy is set the baseline of income. You move minimum wage up and you move the baseline up. Inflation reacts and the increase is null. Minimum wage actually costs opportunity.

Additionally, a study was conducted in 1999 on minimum wage effectiveness. Targeting seems the main issue. Of all those receiving a minimum wage increase, only 17% actually realized any real direct benefits on their households. The other 83% are either working teens or 2nd/3rd income family members.

One proposed solution revolves around tax cuts and subsidies along the lines of Earned Income Credit. In this respect, persons requiring the most assistance, so to speak, would actually receive the most direct benefit.

I doubt he would be approve of that either since the EIC is income redistribution.

Yep, people actually get paid to file their returns. Yes, I'm talking net taxes. All Income taxes(if we must stick with this involuntary revenue collection system) should be "NET 0".

CsG

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have a well defined and controlled target.

I'm also against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have checks in place to judge and quantify actual RESULTS(not intent).

I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that are hand-outs instead of hand-ups. The purpose of programs such as these is to help, not make them reliant.

CsG

I'm against "Involuntary wealth transfer schemes" PERIOD. Do you even realize what you're saying? "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme"=THEFT. A thug who puts a gun to my chest and takes my wallet is inititating an "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme" with a very specific and clearly defined target (himself) with 100% delivery results. Does that make it alright? Or is it still THEFT?

I say it's still THEFT, THEFT is wrong and should not be ENDORSED, SPONSORED or PERPETRATED by the government who's job it is to PROTECT me from such things.

Jason

Yes, I understand what I'm saying. However, you have to realize that we do have a social structure in place and the gov't does have a limited responsibility for Society. However, as you are well aware - the socialist have taken this "limited" responsibility and have used that opening to put their programs in place.
Have they gone too far? Have we allowed them to go too far? Absolutely, but we do have to allow the gov't to take care of their limited social responsibility.

Now the second part of the equation is more of what I think you were trying to address - the way the funds change hands. Are payroll and income taxes "involuntary"? Absolutely. You don't have a choice in that. However if we went to a more consumer based revenue system, the collection would become less "involuntary".

<-covers ears and waits for the gnashing of teeth and shrill shrieks from the left to start.


CsG

Sounds more like you got bashed by the right to me. your view seems fairly moderate to me. Most of the left would agree that responsible reform of the welfare state is a necessity. It most certainly has not lived up to its intent. There is definitely waste and it does have the undesired affect of acting as a free ride for the newly unemployed.

No bashing coming from the left here. Conservative politicians that hold to a more moderate view like what you describe on welfare reform could hold a very useful and enlightnening discussion with moderate politicians from the left on actually accomplishing useful welfare reform in the US.

Ah, but this to me isn't just about "traditional" welfare that people think about - to me it's an all encompassing idea. I'd also be willing to bet that our definitions of "limited" are quite far apart

CsG

Allthough I'm sure your ideas are far from most of the vocal libs on this board. I doubt your ideas are as far opposed to the average voting liberal in america. I'm simply saying that your position coupled with a moderate liberal viewpoint could result in an effective compromise as opposed to the deep chasm that seems to divide most political discourse on this site.

 

[piasabird]

There is nothing in the constitution about receiving social security, so are you going to refuse yours if it still exists at that time?

If I could get all my social security money back I could invest it and actually make a nice nestegg.

I am against all tax breaks. I am tired of companies who shop for the best tax break they can get before they build. Either that, or they threaten to move if you do not give them an unfair advantage. It is time for the flat tax.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tss4
Allthough I'm sure your ideas are far from most of the vocal libs on this board. I doubt your ideas are as far opposed to the average voting liberal in america. I'm simply saying that your position coupled with a moderate liberal viewpoint could result in an effective compromise as opposed to the deep chasm that seems to divide most political discourse on this site.

In that case - I'll wait patiently.

CsG

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have a well defined and controlled target.

I'm also against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have checks in place to judge and quantify actual RESULTS(not intent).

I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that are hand-outs instead of hand-ups. The purpose of programs such as these is to help, not make them reliant.

CsG

I agree, I would perfer like the "real life " equivilent to a "work-study" program, because it helps people and helps society. I believe their was a program like that, but it was struck down as unconstitutiuonal in the 1930's

Originally posted by: Condor
Welfare:

1. Destroys ambition and lets people who aren't naturally motivated languish
2. Destroys pride in accomplishment.

sorry but i doubt many people are proud to be on welfare.

3. Doesn't provide any margin of marginal income.
4. Can't provide marginal income.

I agree that the lack of marginal income in the current system is a signifigant problem. However it is not a proble that can't be addressed.

5. Is percieved as being blatantly unfair as it leverages the labor of one class to support another.

As opposed the poor supporting the rich.

6. Develops a layered society.

Society has been much more layered for a very long time. I don't see how the welfare state can make it worse.

7. Drives a wedge between the do's and the do nothings.
8. Creates discontent in both classes.

As opposed to just one class?

9. Provides one class more opportunitity for political activism, giving the economically impaired class an advantage.

I see as more of a leveling of the playing field, to which the economic elite are already extremely advantaged.

10. Forces people into blocs that are bought and sold like chattel for political gain.
11. Fosters crime in that an idle class will endeavor to better themselves economically and must do so in a subversive manner.
12. Prohibits the impaired class from bettering themselves economically as there are penalities for doing so.
13. Fosters an uneducated sub class.

I agree with #12, and #11 as well when considering the benefits to working in the black market in the current system, which relates to the lack of marginal income.

14. Destroys the productivity of thousands of people and the nation.

But also makes many lives much less unpleasant.

Originally posted by: Condor
[
I don't know what your major is, but it surely isn't economics. It doesn't appear to be history either.

Ironic because my major is economics and a minor is history Now if it could tell me how I'm wrong and not just that i'm wrong, that would be nice

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have a well defined and controlled target.

I'm also against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have checks in place to judge and quantify actual RESULTS(not intent).

I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that are hand-outs instead of hand-ups. The purpose of programs such as these is to help, not make them reliant.

CsG

I'm against "Involuntary wealth transfer schemes" PERIOD. Do you even realize what you're saying? "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme"=THEFT. A thug who puts a gun to my chest and takes my wallet is inititating an "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme" with a very specific and clearly defined target (himself) with 100% delivery results. Does that make it alright? Or is it still THEFT?

I say it's still THEFT, THEFT is wrong and should not be ENDORSED, SPONSORED or PERPETRATED by the government who's job it is to PROTECT me from such things.

Jason

Yes, I understand what I'm saying. However, you have to realize that we do have a social structure in place and the gov't does have a limited responsibility for Society. However, as you are well aware - the socialist have taken this "limited" responsibility and have used that opening to put their programs in place.
Have they gone too far? Have we allowed them to go too far? Absolutely, but we do have to allow the gov't to take care of their limited social responsibility.

Now the second part of the equation is more of what I think you were trying to address - the way the funds change hands. Are payroll and income taxes "involuntary"? Absolutely. You don't have a choice in that. However if we went to a more consumer based revenue system, the collection would become less "involuntary".

<-covers ears and waits for the gnashing of teeth and shrill shrieks from the left to start.


CsG

Actually, I think you're right. We SHOULD have it be more consumer based. I wouldn't be surprised if the govt's revenue actually INCREASED as a result. However, even with that being the case I STILL think that the government has NO AUTHORITY to conduct programs such as Welfare and Socialist Security.

Jason

 

[Dissipate]

The funny thing is that the biggest welfare state today is the military. I've heard these redneck conservatives rail against welfare handouts in one sentence and then talk about how we need a stronger military (as if half a trillion dollars is not enough already) in the next sentence. Ridiculous.

Edit: sorry, the military is the second biggest welfare state today, right after social security.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have a well defined and controlled target.

I'm also against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have checks in place to judge and quantify actual RESULTS(not intent).

I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that are hand-outs instead of hand-ups. The purpose of programs such as these is to help, not make them reliant.

CsG

I'm against "Involuntary wealth transfer schemes" PERIOD. Do you even realize what you're saying? "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme"=THEFT. A thug who puts a gun to my chest and takes my wallet is inititating an "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme" with a very specific and clearly defined target (himself) with 100% delivery results. Does that make it alright? Or is it still THEFT?

I say it's still THEFT, THEFT is wrong and should not be ENDORSED, SPONSORED or PERPETRATED by the government who's job it is to PROTECT me from such things.

Jason

Yes, I understand what I'm saying. However, you have to realize that we do have a social structure in place and the gov't does have a limited responsibility for Society. However, as you are well aware - the socialist have taken this "limited" responsibility and have used that opening to put their programs in place.
Have they gone too far? Have we allowed them to go too far? Absolutely, but we do have to allow the gov't to take care of their limited social responsibility.

Now the second part of the equation is more of what I think you were trying to address - the way the funds change hands. Are payroll and income taxes "involuntary"? Absolutely. You don't have a choice in that. However if we went to a more consumer based revenue system, the collection would become less "involuntary".

<-covers ears and waits for the gnashing of teeth and shrill shrieks from the left to start.


CsG

Actually, I think you're right. We SHOULD have it be more consumer based. I wouldn't be surprised if the govt's revenue actually INCREASED as a result. However, even with that being the case I STILL think that the government has NO AUTHORITY to conduct programs such as Welfare and Socialist Security.

Jason

Oh, in their current forms - you are correct. They have exceeded the limited social responsibilities of the gov't.

CsG

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Tom
"#1 - IT'S MY MONEY, NOT YOURS! "


That's isn't really accurate. I know it's the most common reason people give for being against government spending, but that doesn't make it an correct statement.


Money is a way to measure economic activity. Work is one part of an economic system, but it isn't the whole thing.

The pay a person receives for doing work, or the profit a person receives for investing capital, are in part based on the larger economic system they are a part of. So the money you "earn" before you've paid your share of the cost for the whole economic system, isn't really "YOURS", only part of it is. Part of it comes from the fact that your part of a larger eonomic system.

So if you're willing to look at that reality, then it's possible to make rational decisions about what the entire economic system should look like, what things add to the overall success of the system, what things don't.

If we look at the real world, it's obvious that countries that just let poor people starve to death, aren't the most economically successful countries.

Sorry, but you are just WRONG. When you get paid for a job, you are being compensated for YOUR work, YOUR labor, YOUR effort, YOUR mind. The product of that labor rightly belongs ONLY TO YOU.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The funny thing is that the biggest welfare state today is the military. I've heard these redneck conservatives rail against welfare handouts in one sentence and then talk about how we need a stronger military (as if half a trillion dollars is not enough already) in the next sentence. Ridiculous.

Why not? Between Socialist Security and Welfare ALONE we spend a TRILLION dollars every single year. I hardly think it's out of line to spend as much on LEGITIMATE government functions such as the military as it is the ILLEGITIMATE functions of SS and Welfare.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have a well defined and controlled target.

I'm also against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have checks in place to judge and quantify actual RESULTS(not intent).

I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that are hand-outs instead of hand-ups. The purpose of programs such as these is to help, not make them reliant.

CsG

I'm against "Involuntary wealth transfer schemes" PERIOD. Do you even realize what you're saying? "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme"=THEFT. A thug who puts a gun to my chest and takes my wallet is inititating an "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme" with a very specific and clearly defined target (himself) with 100% delivery results. Does that make it alright? Or is it still THEFT?

I say it's still THEFT, THEFT is wrong and should not be ENDORSED, SPONSORED or PERPETRATED by the government who's job it is to PROTECT me from such things.

Jason

Yes, I understand what I'm saying. However, you have to realize that we do have a social structure in place and the gov't does have a limited responsibility for Society. However, as you are well aware - the socialist have taken this "limited" responsibility and have used that opening to put their programs in place.
Have they gone too far? Have we allowed them to go too far? Absolutely, but we do have to allow the gov't to take care of their limited social responsibility.

Now the second part of the equation is more of what I think you were trying to address - the way the funds change hands. Are payroll and income taxes "involuntary"? Absolutely. You don't have a choice in that. However if we went to a more consumer based revenue system, the collection would become less "involuntary".

<-covers ears and waits for the gnashing of teeth and shrill shrieks from the left to start.


CsG

Actually, I think you're right. We SHOULD have it be more consumer based. I wouldn't be surprised if the govt's revenue actually INCREASED as a result. However, even with that being the case I STILL think that the government has NO AUTHORITY to conduct programs such as Welfare and Socialist Security.

Jason

Oh, in their current forms - you are correct. They have exceeded the limited social responsibilities of the gov't.

CsG

But see, the government has NO Social Responsibilities in terms of funding welfare, retirement, arts, etc. Their legitimate function is purely to provide for the common defense, restrain us from injuring one another via force or fraud, provide a court for dispute resolution, and that's *it*.

Let private parties and private charities take care of the needy. They'll do a better job of it and you won't have to steal from anybody!

Jason

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Tom
"#1 - IT'S MY MONEY, NOT YOURS! "


That's isn't really accurate. I know it's the most common reason people give for being against government spending, but that doesn't make it an correct statement.


Money is a way to measure economic activity. Work is one part of an economic system, but it isn't the whole thing.

The pay a person receives for doing work, or the profit a person receives for investing capital, are in part based on the larger economic system they are a part of. So the money you "earn" before you've paid your share of the cost for the whole economic system, isn't really "YOURS", only part of it is. Part of it comes from the fact that your part of a larger eonomic system.

So if you're willing to look at that reality, then it's possible to make rational decisions about what the entire economic system should look like, what things add to the overall success of the system, what things don't.

If we look at the real world, it's obvious that countries that just let poor people starve to death, aren't the most economically successful countries.

Sorry, but you are just WRONG. When you get paid for a job, you are being compensated for YOUR work, YOUR labor, YOUR effort, YOUR mind. The product of that labor rightly belongs ONLY TO YOU.

Jason

Hey jason, did you or are you going to college? I know there's no way that someone as self reliant as yourself would ever dream of taking any federal money or receiveing a low interest loan from the government. So I'm sure you didn't waste time filling out the FAFSA.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have a well defined and controlled target.

I'm also against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have checks in place to judge and quantify actual RESULTS(not intent).

I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that are hand-outs instead of hand-ups. The purpose of programs such as these is to help, not make them reliant.

CsG

I'm against "Involuntary wealth transfer schemes" PERIOD. Do you even realize what you're saying? "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme"=THEFT. A thug who puts a gun to my chest and takes my wallet is inititating an "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme" with a very specific and clearly defined target (himself) with 100% delivery results. Does that make it alright? Or is it still THEFT?

I say it's still THEFT, THEFT is wrong and should not be ENDORSED, SPONSORED or PERPETRATED by the government who's job it is to PROTECT me from such things.

Jason

Yes, I understand what I'm saying. However, you have to realize that we do have a social structure in place and the gov't does have a limited responsibility for Society. However, as you are well aware - the socialist have taken this "limited" responsibility and have used that opening to put their programs in place.
Have they gone too far? Have we allowed them to go too far? Absolutely, but we do have to allow the gov't to take care of their limited social responsibility.

Now the second part of the equation is more of what I think you were trying to address - the way the funds change hands. Are payroll and income taxes "involuntary"? Absolutely. You don't have a choice in that. However if we went to a more consumer based revenue system, the collection would become less "involuntary".

<-covers ears and waits for the gnashing of teeth and shrill shrieks from the left to start.


CsG

Actually, I think you're right. We SHOULD have it be more consumer based. I wouldn't be surprised if the govt's revenue actually INCREASED as a result. However, even with that being the case I STILL think that the government has NO AUTHORITY to conduct programs such as Welfare and Socialist Security.

Jason

Oh, in their current forms - you are correct. They have exceeded the limited social responsibilities of the gov't.

CsG

But see, the government has NO Social Responsibilities in terms of funding welfare, retirement, arts, etc. Their legitimate function is purely to provide for the common defense, restrain us from injuring one another via force or fraud, provide a court for dispute resolution, and that's *it*.

Let private parties and private charities take care of the needy. They'll do a better job of it and you won't have to steal from anybody!

Jason

Can you name a single country now or in history that has succesfully demonstrated the model you propose?

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Interesting. You in particular have no problem taking our money to waste on the military industrial complex.

The raising of funds to support of a navy and the militia is defined as part of Congress' responsibility in Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Also, I'm quite sure that wealth is poorly correlated to effort, and the hardworking poor also can become resentful of those who benefit with no work, and contribute nothing to society (the rich). Let me make this clear. Very few people are rich through hard work, (although very many who hard hard are still poor) and even fewer are VERY rich through hard work. People who do become rich generally do it through violation of the system (bill gates anyone?)

That is nothing but nonsense. Just take a look at every small-business owner out there and tell them that they didn't do any hard work and that the poor work more than them.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Corporate welfare is real, and it is not a conspiracy theory. One prime example is the airline industry which has been and continues to be proped up with government funds.

That is not corporate "welfare." It's corporate bankruptcy protection and bailout. There is a difference. "Welfare" means we get ZERO return on investment. Money is stolen from the successful and transferred to the lazy who contribute NOTHING. Corporate bankrupty protection and bailout does provide ROI - employees still have jobs and the items/services that the corporation provides are still available. Now that we have that clear, it's a bad practice and should be stopped. (Wow, did we just agree on something? ) There are other successful airlines - Jet Blue. Let the free-market economy purge the unsuccessful corporations and reward the efficient ones.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Oh, in their current forms - you are correct. They have exceeded the limited social responsibilities of the gov't.

CsG

But see, the government has NO Social Responsibilities in terms of funding welfare, retirement, arts, etc. Their legitimate function is purely to provide for the common defense, restrain us from injuring one another via force or fraud, provide a court for dispute resolution, and that's *it*.

Let private parties and private charities take care of the needy. They'll do a better job of it and you won't have to steal from anybody!

Jason

Well, I suppose it depends on how you define things. I personally want to see SS stopped but I do think that a couple of it's goals could be continued without amounting to a huge wealth transfer like SS is- yet still fall into that "limited" social responsibility concept. Likewise, "welfare" can be described many different ways, but our gov't does have a limited social responsibility for it's citizens.

I understand that ideally people would be self-reliant so we could see a society free from gov't run this and that -but reality dictates otherwise. Do we need to curtail our socialist ways? Hell yes, but removing them all is not going to happen - nor should it. Yes, we need to be mindful of the powers granted to the National Government by the Constitution, but remember - states aren't limited by that. So while agree with you in terms of National run type things - I am addressing is the concept/idea at the heart of the matter.

CsG

 

[Genx87]

Welfare itself is a nice idea. But the problem is when you have a nice idea and then let a govt agency get involved it turns into sh1t.

I think we need welfare but it shouldnt become an entitlement where generations of people are on it and people grow up thinking the govt should take care of them.

Welfare should be a program that allows people who have fallen on hard times a little leeway to climb out of their hole.

And if you are on welfare for a certain amount of time and not making progress towards full employment then you should be required to do community service at 30 hours a week. If the govt is going to pay you, you might as well be working by cleaning up the city.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The funny thing is that the biggest welfare state today is the military. I've heard these redneck conservatives rail against welfare handouts in one sentence and then talk about how we need a stronger military (as if half a trillion dollars is not enough already) in the next sentence. Ridiculous.

Why not? Between Socialist Security and Welfare ALONE we spend a TRILLION dollars every single year. I hardly think it's out of line to spend as much on LEGITIMATE government functions such as the military as it is the ILLEGITIMATE functions of SS and Welfare.

Jason

Actually you are right. Social security is the largest welfare state today, the military is right after that. There are no such things as legitimate government functions. Either everything the government does is legitimate (i.e. there is some legitimate social contract between us the citizens and the government and anything the government does is in that contract) or nothing it does is legitimate. It turns out that nothing the government does is legitimate, it has no legitimate authority over anyone, because no legitimate transferal of authority has occurred between the government and the citizens it rules.

This book explains why democracy or any other type of government does not qualify as a legitimate transferal of authority.

In any event, even if the military was a legitimate government function, it is clear that there is an enormous overproduction of defense. Some estimates I have read say that adequate defense could be provided at a cost of about $40 billion a year. Of course, that assumes that the president doesn't use the military as a means of invading other countries and building empires in foreign lands. Also, overseas bases would have to be closed down, as they ought to be. Right now we are basically providing free defense services to other countries, which is outrageous.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Tom
"#1 - IT'S MY MONEY, NOT YOURS! "


That's isn't really accurate. I know it's the most common reason people give for being against government spending, but that doesn't make it an correct statement.


Money is a way to measure economic activity. Work is one part of an economic system, but it isn't the whole thing.

The pay a person receives for doing work, or the profit a person receives for investing capital, are in part based on the larger economic system they are a part of. So the money you "earn" before you've paid your share of the cost for the whole economic system, isn't really "YOURS", only part of it is. Part of it comes from the fact that your part of a larger eonomic system.

So if you're willing to look at that reality, then it's possible to make rational decisions about what the entire economic system should look like, what things add to the overall success of the system, what things don't.

If we look at the real world, it's obvious that countries that just let poor people starve to death, aren't the most economically successful countries.

Sorry, but you are just WRONG. When you get paid for a job, you are being compensated for YOUR work, YOUR labor, YOUR effort, YOUR mind. The product of that labor rightly belongs ONLY TO YOU.

Jason

Maybe an example would make my point more clear. If you were your own little economic system, and you chopped down a tree your "pay" would be some wood.

If you were part of a larger economic system, say the USA for example, you can exchange your wood for money. But only because there's a Treasury department that prints the money, a banking system to manage the flow of money, roads for you to get your wood to the person who wants it, police and courts to make the roads useful, an Army to keep the Canadians from stealing your wood, a homeless shelter so you don't trip over someone on your way, a prison to keep a robber from stealing your money, and on and on and on.

All of these things are part of why you get paid what you get paid. Without them you would either get paid a lot less for the same work, or even more likely, if you look at the real world, you would simply starve to death.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Tom
"#1 - IT'S MY MONEY, NOT YOURS! "


That's isn't really accurate. I know it's the most common reason people give for being against government spending, but that doesn't make it an correct statement.


Money is a way to measure economic activity. Work is one part of an economic system, but it isn't the whole thing.

The pay a person receives for doing work, or the profit a person receives for investing capital, are in part based on the larger economic system they are a part of. So the money you "earn" before you've paid your share of the cost for the whole economic system, isn't really "YOURS", only part of it is. Part of it comes from the fact that your part of a larger eonomic system.

So if you're willing to look at that reality, then it's possible to make rational decisions about what the entire economic system should look like, what things add to the overall success of the system, what things don't.

If we look at the real world, it's obvious that countries that just let poor people starve to death, aren't the most economically successful countries.

Sorry, but you are just WRONG. When you get paid for a job, you are being compensated for YOUR work, YOUR labor, YOUR effort, YOUR mind. The product of that labor rightly belongs ONLY TO YOU.

Jason

Maybe an example would make my point more clear. If you were your own little economic system, and you chopped down a tree your "pay" would be some wood.

If you were part of a larger economic system, say the USA for example, you can exchange your wood for money. But only because there's a Treasury department that prints the money, a banking system to manage the flow of money, roads for you to get your wood to the person who wants it, police and courts to make the roads useful, an Army to keep the Canadians from stealing your wood, a homeless shelter so you don't trip over someone on your way, a prison to keep a robber from stealing your money, and on and on and on.

All of these things are part of why you get paid what you get paid. Without them you would either get paid a lot less for the same work, or even more likely, if you look at the real world, you would simply starve to death.

:beer: