I am not going to get into what people “deserve” and what they do not. If people got what they deserved, Rev. Fred Phelps would be laying on a freeway in Kansas right now, disemboweled by wolves and with his eyes pecked out by crows. I do not think that people are entitled to things they cannot afford, and I believe in making it easier for people to afford things they need by making it easier for them to earn more money.
Let me ask a counter-question: If you cannot afford medical care, does that mean you deserve some of my money?
Oh jesus christ. There’s quite a lot of crap to go and wade through here. Unfortuately I’m quite busy today. So I’ll just have to touch on the most uninformed point for now, and leave the rest for later.
Oh course it is. Haven’t you figured that out already? Also we eat children and throw water baloons at nuns, it’s right there in the Communist Mannifesto.
Any idiot knows that there are multiple definitions for words. What Olentzero was so kindly trying to do, is put forward what exactly he was talking about when he mentioned one of those words, to avoid confusion.
Let me give you an example you might understand. Race. When most people use race in GD they are refering to someone’s ethnicity. It is possible for someone who is unexposed to the terms to think that they were speaking of a strong or rapid current. Of course if someone did that, the OP would go back and provide them with the defintion they were using. You see, if we can’t agree on definitions are arguments are really pointless.
If I’m talking about the working class, and you keep yelling that the working class doesn’t share the same graduation date and therefore isn’t a class, well you get the idea. I actually have some slight revisions to Olentzero’s definitions. But, they are more or less aplicable as they stand.
Yes…and vice versa. It seems tome that medical coverage should be a basic right, rather than a privilige–I do recall * something * about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If deprived of life from inability to afford treatment, it seems like all three of those go right out the window. Humanity has achieved this much by working as a society. To put this in economics terms (to satisfy certain individuals) you derive utility from living in this society. You should therefore pay for that product. If the governmnet is charging too much, you are free to take your demand elsewhere (say…oh, Russia? You’ll never have to pay taxes there). If enough people start leaving, the government will change it’s price. In various threads you’re always telling people that if they don’t like something (TV news, CD prices) to use their power as a consumer and go elsewhere. Same case here. You’re paying for the services you receive.
The only difference is that the government is “non-profit”, in a manner. So the profit goes (to some degree now; it should be to a greater degree) into helping the members of society who are in need.
I just wanted to hear you actually say it. You actually believe that I go to work for 9-10 hours a day, every weekday, to earn money on your behalf. Thank you. To be franky, I didn’t believe you’d own up to it. So what, exactly, distinguishes you from the thief who also believes he is entitled to as much of my property as he can take?
By the way, please send me all the money on your person and in your bank account right now. I deserve it.
What, precisely, do you recall about them? By the way, does my liberty matter, or does it only matter up to the limit of how deeply you can place your hand in my back pocket?
What about a doctor’s right to be paid the going market price for his work? I guess you’re entitled to his money, too. What if I’m deprived of my pursuit of happiness because I could pursue it better in a Ferrari? Do I get to steal your money to buy myself one?
Wait, wait, wait . . . if I have to pay, why doesn’t ** everybody** have to pay? Isn’t that what we’re talking about here–me paying for people who can’t/won’t? How come only I have to pay? Do I get a say in the matter?
Not the same case here. In most of those other threads, I am talking about either:
a) consumer goods for which alternatives exist. I do not have to buy my CDs or my news from only one provider.
b) hypothetical governments in a Libertarian context. In the existing case, I am not free to choose from among competing governments where I am not.
Apparently, I’m paying for the services you receive.
Way to quote out of context. I said that as the short flippant answer, and elaborated below. The point is that you pay taxes as your payment for the benefits you receive. Simple economics, non?
Ahh yes, your right to not pay taxes, but still derive the benefits…
Guess what? In countries with socialized medecine, doctors do get paid–remarkable, isn’t it? In fact, I’ve met a few of them personally; they do pretty well for themselves.
Because you are able to pay, as am I. You pay taxes now–why can’t they be redirected from some programs (I support the military to a point–it provides a lot of jobs–but some of the expenditures are ridiculous) to provide for the welfare of everybody? Moreover, if employersd don’t have to pay for employee’s health care (well, they don’t have to now, but it’s pretty much a standard) they could certainly afford to raise your wages some. Or would you oppose a pay increase? (Note: I’m not specifically talking about your job per se, but private industry in general).
Nobody’s stopping you from moving to Russia–they’d probably be happy to have you there. And they haven’t sucessfully collected on taxes in years. Besides, we’re not talking about theoreticals here–or has socialized medecine been instituted and I just didn’t notice? In fact, I’m sure there’s at least 50 or 60 governments that would be glad to welcome you into their country…take your pick. The US won’t try and stop you from leaving (unless maybe you’re trying to go to Cuba). Heck, we have a large supply of people who want to come here and are glad to pay their taxes if it means they get benefits you already have.
Nope, you’re paying for the services you receive. The government is just using its profits to benefit * everybody… *
If you don’t like the going rate, go elsewhere. You keep saying that CD companies are just charging the market value…well so is the US government.
I don’t remember getting any food stamps. For that matter, I don’t remember getting any multi-million dollar tax abatements. Looks like I’m getting screwed from both directions.
This is, without a doubt, the single funniest thing I have ever seen in my life.
You (well, not specifically you) wanted it in economic terms, so I put it that way. Of course it’s silly; economics is often silly–which is why it wasn’t brought in here until it was requested. Now, I’ll be glad to put it forth in normal human terms…when I get back from work (technically supposed to be running a chromatography now).
I’m sorry, Myrr, but no amount of posting can convince me that dipping increasingly into my paycheck without my prior consent on the basis of “needs” determined by majority vote or government fiat is moral. I do not exist for society’s benefit. We will simply have to agree to disagree.
And, as an aside, I don’t believe that medical care is a “basic human right” any more than running water or electricity are. Doctors don’t occur in nature; they’re people who pursue a profession. Medical care is a commodity, and a limited one at that.
Yeah, but remember that liberalism is changing (again, just as it did circa 1914). Yesterday’s Liberal is today’s Centrist. Bill Clinton (and to a lesser extent, Jimmy Carter) played a huge role in making this happen. The Left Liberals (the real ones) are now represented by Ralph Nader and his ilk, and stand, as they did for nearly a century, for personal civil liberties (though they would still pick your pocket for their cause-du-jour). But the soccer moms and bleeding heart academes are now all Centrists who call themselves Liberals.
No, I’m not saying the same thing. I’m making the same argument. There’s a difference.
As for whether you are included in the category of “socialists that don’t understand economics”, that depends. Do you believe that the only reason that poorly run businesses tend to have problems is the “profit motive”? Do you believe that under socialism, there would be no need for advanced business knowledge and skill? Do you believe that talented CEOs don’t add anything to their companies or the economy?
The question pldennison is focusing on here essentially is ‘I pay my taxes; if my net wealth from doing so is negative and other peoples’ are positive then whet benefit am I deriving?’
There are humanistic arguments. I shall however attempt to suggest to you some benefits purely in economic terms.
The key idea here, as in all economics, is not wealth but utility, namely the amount of ‘enjoyment’ being derived from society’s allocation of scarce resources. From this standpoint one can take either the individual’s or society’s view.
Society’s economic arguments for welfare are simpler to present. Most people will derive little extra enjoyment from an extra £ (or if you must) when they already are earning 50,000 a year. However if that is your first £ (or ) then it means a lot to you. This can even be true proportionally - earning 10% more than 50,000 will to many mean less than earning 10% more than 10,000.
Mathematically, one can say that the utility curve is convex. This means that maximising utility across society as a whole is not a matter of maximising wealth, but rather seeking to balance wealth-generation on one hand with beneficial spread on the other.
Of course individuals will suffer negative utility by feeling that their hard-earned cash is being taken from them. This is another balance that must be considered.
How about the individual’s economic arguments then? Well I think that I personally pay far more in taxes than I receive. I also pay more in charity than I receive. Why do I do this?
I feel that a society in which those without enough to get by are not forced to live rough is more pleasant for me to live in than the alternative. I feel that a society in which everyone has a certain minimum level of education is more pleasant for me to live in than the alternative. In general a society with no poverty would be more pleasant for me to live in. Lo! My reasons for paying taxes are no longer altuistic. Rather, taxes can be viewed as payment for a service. And that service is the provision a generally more pleasant society and environment.
Next time you have to pass through a rough bit of town with your collar up trying to not look like a victim, bear in mind that possibly paying more to eradicate this situation might be in your interests as well as theirs.
No, it isn’t. I think I’ll define my own arguments, thank you very much.
I have never seen one of your posts before, so I can only assume we don’t know each other. I’m Phil–nice to meet you. With that pleasantry out of the way, don’t you dare presume to condescend to me. My wife and I have, in the past, subsisted on $15,000 a year and resided in those neighborhoods, and worse. I know how to get by in a “rough bit of town,” thank you very much.
Apologies for any offence caused. I will insist however that the allegation of condescension is harsh and that you had no need to justify yourself with personal history - although I was replying to your posts my message was certainly not aimed specifically at you. Rather I was seeking to justify the existence of taxes causing a net loss to an individual’s wealth by suggesting that if society as a whole becomes a happier place, then that will have an positive effect on me too, though it may not be a direct one. The holistic approach to life.
Anyhow, with that out of the way - pleased to meet you Phil; I’m Patrick. I introduced myself on an earlier thread, noting the odd feeling that comes with lurking for the better part of a year. The feeling that I ought to know a lot of people here, despite the fact that they don’t know me from Adam. Think of it as celebrity.
Thank you–I do have a tendency to take things personally.
In any case, my argument is not whether we benefit from the services provided by taxes (some of them, anyway; the dairy price supports don’t seem to be lowering the cost of my milk). I have no doubt that we do, and I agree with the benefits of living in a safe, educated society. My argument is whether they ought to be compulsory or if there are other ways of achieving the same ends.
