Hating the rich over liking the poor

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Society absolutely has costs and places restrictions on some freedoms, it also enhances and protects other freedoms. Achieving the correct balance is the tricky part.

40% may not be the right number. It may far lower or higher. Democratic societies should be able to have grown up conversations about what it wants the state to do without degenerating into free market or public provision is always better or worse.

Where j would disagree is your statement that you have already paid your obligations. We need continued taxation as part of being a functional society.

My point is that your labour is only with anything more than substance level because of society. If you have to pay a high % of what you earn to give your labour value then that seems a fair deal.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

There is no theft without ownership. I think you're confused.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ScepticScot

I may need to accrue for future obligations into infrastructure funding. But as of today, the closing balance is zero.

There is the concept of diminishing returns, though. For example, heavily taxed and heavily regulated would begin to seem more like a prison than freedom. Coincidentally, this is what Western "society" has become.

I contend that we do not need a high % of taxes to enjoy the benefits of society. I contend we can do it with far, far less. Social welfare is nothing more than corporate welfare in disguise. Its a way to kick back cash out of the tax coffers to churn among the poor, and end up spent back into corporate coffers. Wal Mart is an enormous beneficiary of social welfare cum corporate welfare. Which ends up increasing the wealth gap, while creating tensions between the contributors and the noncontributors.

Just because its done the way we do it now doesn't mean that is how it should be done. I don't deny that taxation is important if we want to work together to achieve more.

a reply to: Ridhya

you've invented a theoretical fantasy scenario...

No, I have used an actual scenario which has played itself out many times. The right meeting, at the right time, with the right person can, has, and likely always will have the capability of leading to a good job or business deal.

Seriously, who has ever complained about needing to interview everyone?

I was explaining the only conceivable way to remedy an obviously unfair situation. That chance meeting is inherently unfair. The only way to alleviate the unfairness is to ensure that a chance meeting could not lead to a sudden decision in one's favor.

And you're trying to compare public elementary school/high school, which has no real relevance to a good job, while im talking about university.

No, I am comparing a free (publicly supported) education to another free (publicly supported) education.

High school does indeed have relevance to a job; it is a requirement for university studies, which are typically taken to get a job. Without the first step in a process, the remainder of the process is a failure. You might as well say you don't have to sit in a car to drive it somewhere...

And no I am not going to suggest that what works for our small nation would work for yours.

That appears to be exactly what you're doing.

But I am beginning to question how well it works. You seem to have an issue grasping metaphors and equating relative situations.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Speaking as a person who runs HR departments, I can say that the standard is to interview as many candidates as possible. Typically, this is to hedge against EEOC claims.

To the EEOC, "consistency equates to fairness" is the motto. And the best way to ensure this consistency is to have a wide pool of test subjects with which to display the virtue.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It has been my experience that the first meeting is the key to getting a position. Many companies do open the position for a short time and conduct interviews, but this is only to ensure no EEOC problems in the future (which is exactly the liberal mindset scenario I posted earlier, only with a guaranteed outcome). I have seen this happen in engineering, education, drafting, and skilled labor positions.

Oftentimes the position does not technically even exist until the preferred candidate is chosen.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

This is essentially how i was hired.

I paid my dues to be in Rotary, met the right people, and was recommended for a job that was going to be created in a new business.

Best part for me is I had been secretly wanting the job since i first learned about the new business 2 years prior. And I felt like a champ when my networking brought them to me to offer it. Like divine provenance.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I would say say people in western societies enjoy more freedom now that at any point in history. Guess it all depends on what freedoms you consider important.

I am not sure how giving already rich people more money is good for the economy (trickle down) while giving poorer people more money to spend is corporate welfare.

I would say threat we do welfare across the US and Europe is incredibly stupid and wastefull. We pay people a little money to often live in underdeveloped areas and often actually penalise them for any attempt to improve their situation. We then waste a huge amount of admin on making then prove continually they are poor enough to deserve to be kept poor.

The logic of paying people who want to work not to escapes me.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I am not sure how giving already rich people more money is good for the economy (trickle down) while giving poorer people more money to spend is corporate welfare.

It all gets spent back in the corporate environment. That is, what isn't spent with a drug dealer and then shipped off shore.

I don't think we should give anyone anything. Tax should not be entitlement. It should be a contract with the government where we agree to cooperate with our neighbors to maintain infrastructure that is vital to all of us.

I think welfare stifles innovation, and concentrates knowledge away from the masses.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I don't think we should give anyone anything. Tax should not be entitlement. It should be a contract with the government where we agree to cooperate with our neighbors to maintain infrastructure that is vital to all of us.

I agree up to a point. Caring for the less fortunate behooves a society, but that need should be the exception rather than the rule.

The way government assistance is set up now, the safety net has become a safety hammock, comfortably accommodating multi-generational poor. Many who use it do so because they know the system and it is easier than working. That needs to stop, because it is a drain on the resources for those who truly need help and the other needs of society.

The problem with stopping the entitlement program at this time is that our economy is not yet running on all cylinders. We have improved bigly in the past year, but we need more growth just to get to where we should be had logical economic policy been implemented when the problems began. A thriving economy provides opportunity and choice for all, and that ability to choose will help painlessly trim the size of entitlements.

The one thing we must not do is to stop aid to those who have nowhere else left to turn until they have somewhere to turn.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TheRedneck

Speaking as a person who runs HR departments, I can say that the standard is to interview as many candidates as possible. Typically, this is to hedge against EEOC claims.

To the EEOC, "consistency equates to fairness" is the motto. And the best way to ensure this consistency is to have a wide pool of test subjects with which to display the virtue.

That doesn't mean that company can't and won't already have a candidate in mind when they begin the process. Around where my husband works, it can sometimes be an open secret that certain jobs are more or less for certain candidates even if the company goes through the motions.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have no problem with social welfare, but in the best interest of not only the public, but also the individuals recieving assistance, there needs to be an exit strategy.

Like you mention, if its generational, then its a failed policy. And that is exactly what we have.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The real reason it has become generational is that it is based on money, not aid. The two are different. As you mentioned earlier, the poor are essentially being used as a conduit to launder money to the mega-corporations.

And to make it worse, it is entirely possible to be too poor for welfare. In order to get assistance, one must have an address. The truly indigent, the homeless, need not apply.

I have said for years that there is a better way: build efficiency apartments and establish a housing shelter for anyone who wishes to live there, no questions asked except a name. The name is only to ensure that those who violated the policies are not allowed to do so again. No TV, no radio, no telephone, just a mini-kitchen and a warm place to sleep. Limit tenancy to a maximum period, like two years (except for the disabled). After that time, they must either leave for a year or they can enroll in training... college, GED classes, even classes on interviewing and finances that will help them, all at no charge. Keep everything needed to get a job in a common area... classified ads, computers that can access job searches, telephones.

But no luxuries, and you have to play by the rules. No visitors after certain hours, period. If you want TV, you can pay for it. Same with a private telephone. No alcohol, no drugs, one strike and you're out. Vandalism, one strike and you're out. No food stamps... provide food! No middleman = cheaper. You want different food? Buy it. Not many will want to live in such an environment, so the only ones getting aid are those who truly need the aid. ALL of those who need the aid.

And most important, you don't kick them out when they get a job. They can stay if they're working. Give them a chance to build up a nest egg, get a nice place, buy a used car, and leave when they are ready. You'll have a much cheaper, more inclusive, more efficient system that helps everyone who needs help and moves them back into productive society... not as minimum wage fast-food workers, but as productive citizens who leave the facility better than they went in.

just throwing money at a problem never fixes anything.

TheRedneck

reply to TheRedneck
Sigh... you don't listen. I never said the "chance meeting" thing doesn't happen, I said the "liberals complaining about not interviewing everyone" is bull#. You made that up to create a straw man argument.

You're making a ridiculous exaggeration that doesn't compare whatsoever. Chance meeting is something no one controls but destiny. Allowing everyone equal access to education IS something that can be controlled. If the system is rigged against the poor by putting a paywall in education, then it is designed to perpetually keep the poor from advancing to a better job.

You can insult my intelligence all you want but it won't change facts. Your system is rigged against the poor.




a reply to: ScepticScot
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Definitely agree. I don't think there should be monetary welfare. Giving equivalent of a paycheque for nothing encourages people not to work, and they spend on luxuries when it's not earned. Food stamps and shelter subsidies are better ideas that are actually necessary to life.
Basically if you give people too much they become dependent. You need to give them the tools, not the end result. Giving people access free education is like "teaching a man to fish". They still have to compete and land a job, but they have the equal opportunity. And when you have to work to pass classes and to earn money, they appreciate it more.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

I may need to accrue for future obligations into infrastructure funding. But as of today, the closing balance is zero.

There is the concept of diminishing returns, though. For example, heavily taxed and heavily regulated would begin to seem more like a prison than freedom. Coincidentally, this is what Western "society" has become.

I contend that we do not need a high % of taxes to enjoy the benefits of society. I contend we can do it with far, far less. Social welfare is nothing more than corporate welfare in disguise. Its a way to kick back cash out of the tax coffers to churn among the poor, and end up spent back into corporate coffers. Wal Mart is an enormous beneficiary of social welfare cum corporate welfare. Which ends up increasing the wealth gap, while creating tensions between the contributors and the noncontributors.

Just because its done the way we do it now doesn't mean that is how it should be done. I don't deny that taxation is important if we want to work together to achieve more.

Taxes are not used to pay for living in a free society. Why do you think nobody has a clue on where our taxes are used? Think about why our money is taken away, for services, etc.

What services do we need, and pay taxes for?

Taxes paid on purchases and services are billions of dollars in tax money, and is more than enough to pay for all needs of our society.

Income tax, however, is a purely evil tax.

Taking our earnings away is wrong, and only harms all the people.


It is slavery, disguised as a good tax, a benefit to all people.

Income tax is used to keep everyone poor, in having to work for a decent life, to raise a family.

After you work for years, you might earn more money.

It's really just much more money taken away from you, in taxes.


Taxing earnings has never been for our benefit. It is for the complete opposite, in fact.


Income tax is a legalized theft of our rightful earnings. Money we have earned, in exchange for our work. Nobody earned it but us.

Why is it a form of slavery? Because you work for nothing, nearly one whole day, each and every week.

Nobody thinks of income tax as slavery, but it is.


It's out of our basic ignorance that it goes on, no doubt.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That sounds a lot like a return to the poor houses.

Should some signs be put up saying 'no singing, no dancing, no laughing'. Wouldn't want to leave any chance that people on welfare could still enjoy themselves.

a reply to: Ridhya

Vouchers are inefficient as they require admin, they make people pay higher costs due to lack of choice and cause stigma and social division.

How about as a better option we give people in need of a job a job. Let them genuinely earn a living and contribute.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I was hoping we would see a civil service package stuffed into a tax plan. Nothing on the scale of FDR....but put some money towards dams and bridges.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Absolutely. I don't agree with Trump on much but he is right that the US needs better infrastructure and people need more spending power.

The problem is people see these things in terms if accounting rather than economics. Deficit spending for economic growth is a good thing as long as it's not excessively inflationary.