Chances are, using your system, you wouldn’t be able to find a fire department to pay to put out a fire, because it wouldn’t be cost effective for someone to maintain that kind of equipment for the few of you that could afford it, unless you and your rich friends decided to pay for the whole kit and kaboodle yourselves. That ought to run you a few hundred thou a year…but look at the taxes you’d save, dude!
Vinyl Turnip isn’t calling me names, but rather alluding to Hobbes’ famous description of life in the State of Nature. The ‘you’ is a generic ‘you’, and doesn’t refer to me (except insofar as it refers to everyone).
But why is it my fault and my responsibility?
Give me one example and I’ll gladly sway my opinion.
But as it stands, we just had millions of people that bought houses they couldn’t afford. To do this they choose to get a variable rate mortgage, put 0% down, and assumed the value of their house would go up.
Well, 4 years later house prices fell and interest went up and the same people suddenly find themselves underwater. Then layoffs and cutbacks followed, and people found that they needed the duel incomes and expected bonuses to make ends meet, because turns out they also had no savings. Was that my fault?
I just bought a house, that costs less than the bank wanted to lend me, with a 30 year fixed mortgage that I put 20% down on. I lived (rented) cheaply until I could afford the 20%. And I choose a fixed rate mortgage in case rates go up. Was I a fool for doing that? Was I some how unique in doing that?
We’ve established a system where there are no consequences for bad decisions.
Again, why is it my fault and my responsibility?
Perhaps the solution isn’t to tax income earners and provide social safety nets. Maybe what we need is to legislate responsibility. We mandate auto insurance, for what ever good that does. We require seatbelt and helmet use.
I remember my mother telling me about my grandfather who was in the RCMP. When he was starting out they used to have these “requirements.” He had to show that he had a certain amount in savings before he could get married. A certain amount before he could get a house, before he could have kids. I don’t believe her, and I don’t know any more details. But makes you think, why don’t we have responsibility in our society?
Every year for the past 4 years my wife’s company has had layoffs. And every year the two of us sit down and discuss what will happen if she gets laid off. We looked at costs of moving, where we’d move to, how much money we’d need. Are we fools for planning a head?
Last November we took a dive trip to Honduras. In the planning stages we invited a friend of hers who is big into diving. She said, and I quote, “I think I might get laid off soon, and my husband has had his hours cut back. We’re tightening our belts to be ready.”
Was she a fool for not maxing out her credit card? I feel like the argument for higher taxes are to cover the people that don’t bother planning for the future. Shit happens, so get insurance.
Exactly, so every year I go into the woods near by house and clear out the dead brush. I don’t sit back and expect someone else to do it for me. If you know why there are fires, either take steps to prevent it, or don’t live so close that it threatens your life. And if you choose to live that close, take personal responsibility and be prepared to pay the cost of living there.
Well, as we prepare for another season of CNN’s round the clock coverage of the California wildfires, ask yourself, how many of them were unaware of the fires from last year? People need to be aware of the costs, otherwise they don’t care.
yes, people lived historically near rivers because the flooding was needed for agriculture. They also thought if it flooded the Gods were angry at them and sacrificed a virgin. If you go to places that have routine flooding you’ll notice a very consistent concept–houses on stilts! People in third world countries understand how to live near a flood plane, people in the US expect to be bailed out. If people are still living in those areas because they “can’t afford to move” they should be told that “they can’t afford to stay.”
Rivers flood, it’s what they do, like clock work every season. Why do people always act surprised?
I can’t afford my house, so I have a mortgage.
So you just add words to make me look bad? I’m not implying people are lazy. I’m stating that people are irresponsible.
Why should they have assistance? You state that as a fact. Why is it they have less? Did I personally do something to them to keep them down?
So I shouldn’t bother with the first 3? Just wait for shit to happen and expect the government to bail me out using tax payer funds?
- Get disability insurance
- Get a job at a company that provides a group plan.
- Plan for disaster by having savings ←
This isn’t hard. Just walk through a worst case scenario. If you get sick you’ll need health insurance, you’ll need disability insurance, and you’ll need savings. So what is stopping you from getting those? Am I stopping you?
If you find that you wouldn’t be able to afford your mortgage, your mortgage is too high, you are living beyond your means. Are you advocating that it’s okay to live off credit cards in a house you can’t afford?
Let’s try again then. The government shouldn’t be solving people’s problems using my money, because it is ineffective and solving people’s problems. More often than not, it causes problems, that then require more of my money.
Example, the government (and majority voters) felt we needed a massive army to protect the homeland, thus solving the problem of invading armies.
Well, having this massive army encouraged other countries to build massive armies, because it looked like we’d invade. So solving one problem, caused a second.
{the following is intentionally simplistic to fit in the space provided}
Great, now we need more money for a larger army, and we need to station some of the army in the Middle East. But stationing them in the MENA has pissed a lot of people off so they attacked us.
Now we need more money so we can invade the group that attacked us and a second country at random.
And now that’s pissed off the country in between those two, and encourage more build up from another country…
I’m all for helping people. But the current system is based on some one else thinks they know how to help, so they use my money.
So to counter your personal attack on my character, I devote a lot of time and a lot of money to a charity I think helps people. If my taxes were lower, I’d spend more time and more money allowing them to help more.
Instead, my tax dollars are going to corrupt charities that squander their funds on coke and hookers (not literally coke and hookers, it’s usually little boys or hookers).
Why am I the go to person to help all these people?
If you hit rock bottom what will you do? Is your first inclination to run to the government for help? Are people in this world so alone that is their only recourse?
How often is health insurance really taken away? Are people not free to evaluate insurance companies and choose one that’s reputable?
If I choose a crappy mechanic, is it your fault? I have to do my research.
I see what you mean. It’s not in reference to people being lazy, it’s about not contributing but expecting benefits. It’s also about working towards your own betterment. Taking time to build your own dike or clear the dry brush so that you are a drain on society.
Maybe, sounds like wishful thinking. I think (based on personal experience) it’s more likely that next year they’ll demand more, and become indignant. Suddenly the crop I harvested isn’t up to their standards that I set the previous year. And because I fed them now they’ve got kids I also get to feed.
You’re a good person.
Fine, but most of what you’re saying is that all this stuff happens at random and is never a person’s fault. Can we agree that there is at least a degree of personal responsibility?
Why aren’t they able to?
And I’m quite serious about that point. Consider that we’ve been mucking about with socialism for a while now. Think about all the arguments for public schools, did it pan out? All the programs we’ve had for decades have done nothing.
I apologize for not having the stats to back this up, but it seems like after all this socialism, and all these taxes, and all the safety nets, there are MORE people in need. Shouldn’t there be less?
What excuse is there for someone that had access to full K-12 public schooling. And then had access to both government back student loans, bursaries for low incomes, scholarships for sports and academics, and then subsidized higher education?
What excuse do you put forth for people that got bad mortgages?
If a person has a chronic health condition, they should know they’ll need a job that provides a group health plan. It’s just the reality we’re stuck with. If they are that dependent on it, they should make sure they have their own safety net in place.
It simply doesn’t work.
You can’t pay for your “use” of national defense. You cannot decline its use, either. You can’t pay for your “use” of law enforcement, public infrastructure, civil law, maintenance of public lands and facilities, currency issue, or any number of other things, because your usage of those things cannot, in any meaningfully accurate way, be quantified.
There are some things that we can ONLY buy collectively in any way that works. That’s just simple economics; look up “externality” and “market failure” for an introduction.
Well, thankfully if that person is unable to work, they’re also unlikely to storm my moat. And if they aren’t working, it’s unlikely they can hire mercenaries to do it for them. So then, who is going to rob me in their place? Perhaps friends and family? Well, perhaps instead of robbing me, the friends and family could help out?
Or better yet, why can’t I choose who I get to help and how?
My apologies, I’ll go back and read it.
Even at its most charitable interpretation, when it’s not supposed to be a con man’s game run by our betters, the idea that if you aggregate the decisions of 300 million people you will produce some aspirational avatar of The People, The Country, or whatever is as goofy an article of faith as the six-day creation or Noah’s flood.
Public goods would never be produced if everyone shared your attitude.
Well, let’s see, I pay per kilowatt-hour, I pay per gallon of water and sewage. What’s wrong with that?
I’m advocating a user pay system, not one of pure anarchy.
If I benefit from the police, if that is truly important to me, allow me to pay it. I’m all for user fees, admission fees, tolls, etcs.
I will gladly pay my share of what I use. If I go to dinner, I pay for the food I eat.
Bridges are expensive, if I need to cross a river I should pay my share to get across safely. And if there are things on the other side I desire, I should be willing to pay the cost of getting them across that river. See the way I pay for the things I want? If you want to cross the river, you should pay, and if you want things on the other side, you should pay.
If we leave it up to committee, voters, and the government we end up with [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge]Bridges to No Where. So tell me, should we all chip in more so people on a remote island can avoid the hassle of a ferry? Or should they be forced to consider the cost and hassle of island life when deciding to live there?
emacknight
How old are you?
My somewhat hasty reply isn’t quite what I meant to say.
Your thesis seems to be based on the way you think everyone should behave. The established system is designed around the way people are known to behave.
We have prisons because people are known to break laws. It would be easier if everyone just stopped breaking the law, but it’s sadly just not that simple.
It’s relevant because a person’s future is by a large part precipitated by their immediate environment, as well as their initial windfall (both in resources and skills). Yes, people can go from rags to riches. But it takes a great deal more skill and luck to go from being poor and unable to save up for potential disasters to being rich, than it is to go from being rich to being richer.
Um…yes? How many people are illiterate in this day and age, hmm?
The problem with the “let’s all pay only our own way” approach is that often my neighbors problems BECOME my problems if left unattended.
If my neighbor’s house is on fire, I want someone to come and put it out before it spreads to my house.
If someone is selling crack three blocks away, I want someone to bust them before their clients show up to rob me.
I want trucks to be regularly inspected so they don’t smash into me on the road when their brakes fail.
I want poor kids to have decent educations so they will grow up to be productive and responsible adults instead of ignorant thugs.
And on and on down the list.
I like paying taxes, because when the government makes things better for my neighbors, the benefits they receive trickle down to me.
Again: nobody said anything was your fault. If you insist on viewing it that way or framing this as punishment as a rhetorical device, I don’t think you’re going to get anything out of the discussion.
Haven’t people already given you a bunch of exaples? You said you shouldn’t have to pay for highways above and beyond what you drive, but jtgain pointed out that your goods and still shipped to you using those highways. You said you don’t use the libraries, but Chronos pointed out that you can benefit culturally from other people who do use the library. You said you don’t need the fire department because you (I guess) own a fire extinguisher and don’t smoke, but acsenray pointed out what happens there. You asked what incentive you have to grow the best/most crops if the government takes some of what you grow and gives it to others, and I pointed out that the people who get your crops survive, they (and their neighbors or families) can buy from you in the future. I’m probably forgetting a bunch of other examples from elsewhere in this thread.
Yes, I know. In this crisis it’s been overlooked in a lot of quarters that in addition to all the corporate greed, a lot of homeowners got greedy and did stupid things or did not understand what they were getting into.
No consequences? Tell that to the people who lost their homes.
I don’t think you’ll get a lot of takers on this. It raises pretty much the same problem: people won’t want to be required to do something just because others are irresponsible.
I don’t think so.
That’s not true, though.
If it were that easy I don’t think we’d be having this discussion.
Do you happen to own a national forest?
This is absurd. There’s no shortage of houses on pilings here. And when natural disasters strike developed countries as opposed to developing ones, they tend to be orders of magnitude smaller. Even when people live in flood zones, things like building codes make a difference.
So you’re proposing the government buy their homes and give them the money to live somewhere else? Or are you proposing it just confiscate their property? If it’s the latter I’d like to introduce you to the OP of this thread- because he thinks taxes are theft.
Who are you talking about?
I didn’t add a word: I responded to something you were stating and implying.
I actually didn’t state it as a fact. I said your exemplary mode of living does not prove that nobody should need assistance.
If the problem is ‘I had insurance and got dropped,’ “Get insurance” is not a solution. And planning for disaster by having savings is always a good idea. But what happens, for example, if you get sick, lose your insurance, and find yourself with a chronic and debilitating condition that’s going to require treatment for the rest of your life? Your savings may not be sufficient. Are you just shit out of luck, then?
Don’t ask me, I’m saving money. And I have insurance. That does not mean I am prepared for the worst eventualities.
I never said that was okay. I think it’s stupid. There’s a reason I have no balance on my credit card.
In many cases I agree that’s true. I think the government is often very inefficient.
I think hundreds of billions is being wasted on defense these days. Does it follow that all government programs are inferior to free market solutions? No, I don’t think so.
Yes, it is.
I made none. If you think I’m attacking your character by pointing out that you contintually phrasing this as a “Why me?” argument, all I can say is that you’ve used that phrasing over and over again. For example:
Depends on what you mean by “first inclination.” If I were out of work and couldn’t get another job, yes, I’d collect unemployment. I’d be stupid not to, seeing as how if I didn’t, it wouldn’t take me very long to exhaust my savings, at which point it would be hard to pay the rent. Of course the same thing would happen eventually even WITH unemployment.
Not all of us can rely on a church or family with great resources, no.
More often than it should be, which is never. I’ll look for something more precise than that. But yes, it does happen. And then there’s the problem of getting insurance in the future if you’ve had a serious illness in the past.
Clearing the brush behind your own house is a good idea. Building your own roads or your own dam is less realistic.
It’s at least as reasonable as the hypothetical you go on to make up. I don’t know what the social entitlements are like in Canada, but when people go on welfare here, they usually don’t stay there forever because it’s not enough to live on. And our unemployment benefits run out eventually.
Alas, your praise is my only reward. 
I never said anything like that.
We’re speaking in the biggest generalities here. Often, people are bad planners. Other times things happen that they did not reasonably expect. For example even if you have been healthy and have saved up as much as possible, you’re not necessarily going to be able to deal with a catastrophic illness or injury.
Who is ‘we?’ There are poor public schools here and there are good ones. There are countries with public schools that do much better than we do, so the problem does not appear to be just ‘public schools don’t work.’
Compared to when?
See above. Some got screwed, some made dumb choices. In some cases they made the dumb choices with the encouragement of lenders - which doesn’t totally absolve them of responsibility but should still be noted.
Again, this seems to boil down to ‘they should have known better.’
Public spending actually is more efficient. You actually get back muchmore n value when the communal infrastructure is maintained and ready when you need it. If you privatize the road system god example it will be far too expensive for you go pay your own way. You simply won’t enjoy the same quality of life as you do by paying taxes.
I considered saying this, but decided not to since the moment had passed and my remark was perhaps unclear. But yes, I did mean the general “you.” (I have no personal knowledge of the OP’s, nor Gorsnak’s, height.)
And it simply would not be an efficient use of resources for such a small number of people to maintain the same level of service for themselves.
And a society with extreme inequality is also a society that innovates less, creates less entertainment, and so on. The people with all the money will have less to spend it on.
Furthermore, the more unequal the society is, the less you will enjoy living in it. Countries where there are extreme differences in the quality of life enjoyed by people in proximity with each other are unpleasant, hostile, and dangerous. And this is proven not only by societies with weak governments but also by societies with strong governments that fail to accommodate the needs and desires of large segments of the population.
And so far you have still ignored the fact that we actually have real life experience with the kind of society you describe, both historically and today. Why won’t you answer the question about Somalia? That’s the kind of circumstance you end up in when people fail to ensure a certain minimum level of satisfaction for the majority of people living around them – the state fails and then everyone is at the mercy of thugs with guns.
Maintaining a certain level of what you deride as socialism is in your own interest. The fact is that experience in our very lifetimes demonstrates the government can indeed solve some problems to some extent. Improved conditions are usually better than nothing. We don’t need to show miracles to justify it.
A society with less material inequality and a society in which people feel less insecure from sudden loss from financial or health or whatever calamity is a society in which things work better, in which people as a whole are happier and more cooperative, a stable, safe, sane society.
Because you’re the one who’s complaining.
I like the existing Canadian system, thanks. And I’m confident that enough productive people enjoy the benefits of living in a society that only an insignificant handful will actually move away.
In fact, they’re free to go anytime they like, and Canada hasn’t collapsed.
Well, put your money where your mouth is. The island awaits, where nobody will demand money from you and nobody will provide you with anything.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but if the OP is actually trying to argue that the mere existence of taxation equates to a socialist society, it’s going to be pretty hard for me to take any of his other opinions seriously. Likewise, despite any inefficiencies in the current system, a scheme requiring individual payment for every individual use of a community service, down to use of local streets, would be absurdly complex and inefficient.
In any event, he seems to be arguing that I should vote in favor of giving him the opportunity to be much more selfish than he (presumably) currently is able to be. Since I see no compelling benefit to doing so, and since I’m mostly fine with the taxation system in the US, I decline.
And not just any socialist society; the defunct USSR specifically.
What about national defense? Surely you should have to pay for your share of that because even if you are wealthy, paying for all personal needs, and live in the woods in your unabomber shack, you still must rely on the U.S. Military to keep the Russkies out. How can you refuse to pay for that and not reap the benefits? Plus those roads help the military logistically.