http://neo-whig.blogspot.com/2010/02/les s-social-works-programsless-taxes.html
Yeah, I get it's a link to an external blog, and it's kind of long, but I don't mind arguing with anyone about it here. It would be more direct to discuss it on a forum as apposed to responding to the comments. That's why I posted it here.
Sega and Nintendo fan group on FacebooklBe Billy's Followerl Wii U name: Billy_Martin l PSN: Opackersfan
Teach a man to fish, and you lose a Democrat voter.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
Where to begin...?
While some social programs are good, and do help protect people, most of the good ones are abused and broken and politicians are less interested in fixing them so we can pay less taxes and more interested in proposing more spending bills that come out of our paychecks.
Which social programs are good? Which ones are bad? Why? What makes the taxes sent to one program more wasteful than those sent to another? The author answers none of these questions; it's just the usual tactic of "blame the liberals" without giving any real reasons to do so.
In Peoria, the tax payers are paying for a museum to be erected and the tax payers get absolutely nothing back from it. In other words, people are working to pay for someone else's success.
How is this at all related to social works programs? What does "social works program" even mean by the definition of the author?
Most argue that capitalism is fueled by greed and oiled by the blood of the worker while the hot shot business owner does nothing and gets all the money for it. This is the moral justification, according to most left wingers, for establishing social programs.
Since when? My understanding of social programs was giving support to people down on their luck.
This couldn't be further from the truth. The rich get richer, not by exploiting, but by working and making good decisions.
Enron? Bernie Madoff? Subprime lending? None of that was exploitation? There are legitimate businessmen out there, but the aforementioned "liberal propaganda" statement is not untrue, and again has nothing to do with the justification for social programs.
With more social programs in play, failing businesses are given an unnecessary second chance that's supported by tax payers who did no wrong and did nothing to cause the collapse.
Need I remind anyone that this trend started with a Republican administration trying to support business that were "too big to fail?"
The majority of people who make minimum wage are people who have never had jobs, or people that are 16-20. The majority of these still are teenagers that live in houses with people, i.e. parents or grandparents, which have jobs that are well enough to support them.
"Majority" can be anything over fifty percent, however incremental. The lack of hard data makes me skeptical of the extent of the author's knowledge on the matter.
-----
Conclusion: this blog contains nothing of substance and should not be used as the basis for one's opinion on social works programs. Ignore the link, and let's have an honest discussion on the matter.
At 2/28/10 02:49 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: let's have an honest discussion on the matter.
okay.
Social programs involve the FORCED redistribution of wealth at gunpoint and are hence inherently immoral.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 2/28/10 02:53 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 2/28/10 02:49 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: let's have an honest discussion on the matter.okay.
Social programs involve the FORCED redistribution of wealth at gunpoint and are hence inherently immoral.
In a capitalist market any action taken by the government is done through forced redistribution of wealth, & therefore you are advocating anarchy.
At 2/28/10 03:06 AM, kraor024 wrote:
In a capitalist market any action taken by the government is done through forced redistribution of wealth, & therefore you are advocating anarchy.
I don't believe our police force or military require the forced redistribution of wealth. In fact quite a few public services don't. Do you think that governments only purpose is to redistribute wealth?
At 2/28/10 03:06 AM, kraor024 wrote: In a capitalist market any action taken by the government is done through forced redistribution of wealth, & therefore you are advocating anarchy.
Read The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, it has a chapter dedicated to government financing in a free society
tl;dr: "One of Ayn Rand's ideas for a possible means of voluntary government financing was that individual contracts could include a payment to the government in return for assured governmental enforcement of the contract. That way, the makers of each contract could choose to pay the government a fixed amount that would be built into the contract. The underlying idea was that people could pay for each individual service provided by the government as they used it, and this has some practical applicability in the realm of contract enforcement"
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 2/28/10 03:32 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
tl;dr: "One of Ayn Rand's ideas for a possible means of voluntary government financing was that individual contracts could include a payment to the government in return for assured governmental enforcement of the contract. That way, the makers of each contract could choose to pay the government a fixed amount that would be built into the contract. The underlying idea was that people could pay for each individual service provided by the government as they used it, and this has some practical applicability in the realm of contract enforcement"
I'm just a bit curious on how this system would work exactly.
What services would be offered by the government? How would you prove that you have payed for these contracts, especially when you are being mugged, being held hostage, or even unconscious?
Would there be any programs you would be forced to pay? If not, couldn't you benefit from government services such as the military without paying for it?
Would the government prevent the people from offering any services it offers? If not, couldn't a corporation made up of unelected officials offering the same services as the government become as powerful as or even more powerful than the government?
At 2/28/10 03:32 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: "The underlying idea was that people could pay for each individual service provided by the government as they used it, and this has some practical applicability in the realm of contract enforcement"
How would Rand apply this to the homeless and unemployed without money for such a contract? Some social programs are designed to get people back into the workforce who would otherwise have few or no faculties for doing so.
At 2/28/10 04:04 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: How would Rand apply this to the homeless and unemployed without money for such a contract? Some social programs are designed to get people back into the workforce who would otherwise have few or no faculties for doing so.
No no no, this has nothing to do with helping the homeless etc
I was responding to the claim that without taxation you would have anarchy.
Now, addressing your point.
In 1964 America declared a "war on poverty". In 1968 13% of Americans were "poor". From 1968 to 1980 the government increased social welfare payments by 400%. In 1980, 13% were poor.
Despite being inherently immoral because they involve the use of the coercive mechanism of taxation, social programs are also practically ineffective.
Private charity has always helped the poor more than governments could ever help them.
America donates more to charity than any other country, and interestingly also has the greatest tax deductibility for charity donations. If we have no tax (and hence people have greater disposable incomes), then obviously there would be an even greater inclination still to donate to charity. On net balance, I can guarantee you the poor would be better off.
"What would happen to the poor in an objectivist/free society?"
Rand: "If you wish to help them, you will not be stopped"
(Paraphrased from The virtue of selfishness.)
At 2/28/10 04:00 AM, Marano wrote: I'm just a bit curious on how this system would work exactly.
It is a complex idea, and like I said that was only a tl;dr version of it.
If you're really interested I recommend reading what I was talking about. I have tracked down an online copy here (pg 110), so I suggest have a quick read through. Even still, it Rand concedes she doesn't know the narrow specifics of the the types of policies we're discussing, but the fact that the idea of voluntary taxation i morally/philosophically justified would suggest that the idea is definitely worth discussing.
What services would be offered by the government?
Apart from protection against force and fraud, there's no single way of doing things. In an ideal minarchist state( which would be the kind of state that would do away with taxes in the way I've been talking about), nothing else would be offered, but as long as the services don't involve initiation or force or fraud then it wouldn't really matter, because it's a private contract.
Would the government prevent the people from offering any services it offers? If not, couldn't a corporation made up of unelected officials offering the same services as the government become as powerful as or even more powerful than the government?
Perhaps, except they won't be allowed to initiate force or fraud against anyone, and even still, it would be in a citizen's best interest to pay towards a nation's police/military to prevent corporations from becoming powerful with the use of force.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 2/28/10 04:50 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
In 1964 America declared a "war on poverty". In 1968 13% of Americans were "poor". From 1968 to 1980 the government increased social welfare payments by 400%. In 1980, 13% were poor.
In 1964 the poverty rate was 19 percent & has been between 11 & 15 percent since 1968, lower than historical average, that doesn't in any way show that the policy was effective but it really doesn't help your claim either.
Private charity has always helped the poor more than governments could ever help them.
America donates more to charity than any other country, and interestingly also has the greatest tax deductibility for charity donations.
Source?
At 2/28/10 03:28 AM, Marano wrote:At 2/28/10 03:06 AM, kraor024 wrote:I don't believe our police force or military require the forced redistribution of wealth. In fact quite a few public services don't. Do you think that governments only purpose is to redistribute wealth?
It could be argued that is the governments purpose but it can not fulfill any function without doing so. For instance police & military require personnel & equipment, they pay the personnel & buy the equipment by taking money by force via taxes, Thus wealth is taken by force & redistributed to personnel & the companies that provide equipment. Any & all actions taken by the government inevitably require the redistribution of wealth that was taken by force.
At 2/28/10 02:06 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Teach a man to fish, and you lose a Democrat voter.
You are aware that on average democrats & liberals earn more than conservatives/republicans, & that red states tend to have a higher percentage of their population utilizing social services?
At 2/28/10 02:06 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Teach a man to fish, and you lose a Democrat voter.
Hah, I have to believe this to an extent. The extent being the lower half of liberals that have no money. The other half of course are the people who just don't know the value of a dollar.
At 2/28/10 03:28 AM, Marano wrote: I don't believe our police force or military require the forced redistribution of wealth. In fact quite a few public services don't. Do you think that governments only purpose is to redistribute wealth?
Well if you don't pay your taxes, which is half redistribution of wealth, then you go to jail. Unless of course you are a US senator.
At 2/28/10 08:20 AM, kraor024 wrote:
It could be argued that is the governments purpose but it can not fulfill any function without doing so. For instance police & military require personnel & equipment, they pay the personnel & buy the equipment by taking money by force via taxes, Thus wealth is taken by force & redistributed to personnel & the companies that provide equipment. Any & all actions taken by the government inevitably require the redistribution of wealth that was taken by force.
I thought when you mentioned redistribution of wealth, you were talking about the commonly
accepted term. I'm assuming by redistribution of wealth you mean taxes, which not all forms of government have. There's SadisticMonkey's Ayn Rand government, where you choose to pay for which government services you want based on a contract, or there's a communism where there isn't any money to tax or wealth to redistribute.
At 2/28/10 02:53 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 2/28/10 02:49 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: let's have an honest discussion on the matter.okay.
Social programs involve the FORCED redistribution of wealth at gunpoint and are hence inherently immoral.
Any government expenditure includes coercion, that's the only way of providing public goods, and the main justification for them being provided by the government. Basically, everyone wants them,but nobody wants to chip in, so you force people.
The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth -- JMK
At 2/28/10 03:25 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:
Any government expenditure includes coercion, that's the only way of providing public goods, and the main justification for them being provided by the government. Basically, everyone wants them,but nobody wants to chip in, so you force people.
I believe the idea of the social programs they're talking about is that the poor benefit from them and everyone else has to pay. E.g. welfare and medicaid. This is a program that the poor want, but everyone else doesn't, and the poor don't have to pay for, but everyone else does. So somebody is basically forcing you to give your money to someone else. When the guy in the ally does it, its usually called robbery.
At 2/28/10 04:21 PM, Marano wrote: I believe the idea of the social programs they're talking about is that the poor benefit from them and everyone else has to pay. E.g. welfare and medicaid. This is a program that the poor want, but everyone else doesn't, and the poor don't have to pay for, but everyone else does. So somebody is basically forcing you to give your money to someone else. When the guy in the ally does it, its usually called robbery.
I'm just going to address this really quickly. I got diabetes at 15. No insurer wants to cover me on thebasis of a pre-existing condition. If I were not in a position to get a higher education (which I barely am) so I could get a job that would cover my expenses (which I can't do without dropping out of school), I would be dependent on welfare and Medicaid for what would likely be the rest of my life, employed or not. It's not the best use of money, sure; but until government addresses the problems that would put me in that position (if it ever does), the only alternative is to give me nothing and let me die. And they won't do that either, as long as I provide some sort of function in society.
Sadi makes an interesting point about charity, though; I'll have to investigate that for myself. If a charity can be used to do what social programs are supposed to do, and with a higher success rate, then it's worth a little "redistribution of wealth" to give them a stronger base to work on. And that doesn't mean giving taxpayer money to faith-based initiatives; if that happens I'll convert to LaVeyan Satanism, apply for funding under the organization "Altruists of Lucifer," and watch what happens when their own culture-warrior lawmaking bites them in the ass. I mean actually giving that money back to the people who earned it so they can contribute of their own volition to the charity of their choice.
At 2/28/10 02:06 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Teach a man to fish, and you lose a Democrat voter.
And... where does a man learn to fish?
At 2/28/10 08:18 AM, kraor024 wrote: In 1964 the poverty rate was 19 percent & has been between 11 & 15 percent since 1968, lower than historical average, that doesn't in any way show that the policy was effective but it really doesn't help your claim either.
Source? because this book claims otherwise
Source?
Here, among others. It even mentions that tax breaks for donations is a large part of it.
At 2/28/10 08:20 AM, kraor024 wrote:At 2/28/10 02:06 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Teach a man to fish, and you lose a Democrat voter.You are aware that on average democrats & liberals earn more than conservatives/republicans, & that red states tend to have a higher percentage of their population utilizing social services?
Lol I was really just shit-stirring, but sure, show me the source.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 2/28/10 03:25 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Any government expenditure includes coercion,
Not in the scenario I presented
Basically, everyone wants them,but nobody wants to chip in, so you force people.
I'd would say that's fair enough for defence and police forces, given the difficulty in administrating a system where only certain people would be protected or would have to pay after being protected etc, but for pretty much everything else, ESPECIALLY social programs, it's called redistribution for a reason. And for "public" goods, why do you need to force them to pay? Make them sign a contract where they AGREE to pay IF they want a particular service/goods.
And 'everyone wants (something)' is no excuse for the initiation of force.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 2/28/10 02:49 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Where to begin...?
While some social programs are good, and do help protect people, most of the good ones are abused and broken and politicians are less interested in fixing them so we can pay less taxes and more interested in proposing more spending bills that come out of our paychecks.Which social programs are good? Which ones are bad? Why? What makes the taxes sent to one program more wasteful than those sent to another? The author answers none of these questions; it's just the usual tactic of "blame the liberals" without giving any real reasons to do so.
Most argue that capitalism is fueled by greed and oiled by the blood of the worker while the hot shot business owner does nothing and gets all the money for it. This is the moral justification, according to most left wingers, for establishing social programs.Since when? My understanding of social programs was giving support to people down on their luck.
This couldn't be further from the truth. The rich get richer, not by exploiting, but by working and making good decisions.Enron? Bernie Madoff? Subprime lending? None of that was exploitation? There are legitimate businessmen out there, but the aforementioned "liberal propaganda" statement is not untrue, and again has nothing to do with the justification for social programs.
With more social programs in play, failing businesses are given an unnecessary second chance that's supported by tax payers who did no wrong and did nothing to cause the collapse.Need I remind anyone that this trend started with a Republican administration trying to support business that were "too big to fail?"
The majority of people who make minimum wage are people who have never had jobs, or people that are 16-20. The majority of these still are teenagers that live in houses with people, i.e. parents or grandparents, which have jobs that are well enough to support them."Majority" can be anything over fifty percent, however incremental. The lack of hard data makes me skeptical of the extent of the author's knowledge on the matter.
-----
Conclusion: this blog contains nothing of substance and should not be used as the basis for one's opinion on social works programs. Ignore the link, and let's have an honest discussion on the matter.
I don't have time to go by these one by one. You say that blog contains no substance for the matter, but I don't see where you're drawing that conclusion from. You just took snippets of what I said while you ignored the rest. Like I stated plainly, if people have less social programs then they pay less taxes which puts more money in their wallet. That's a great argument on the matter.
In Peoria, the tax payers are paying for a museum to be erected and the tax payers get absolutely nothing back from it. In other words, people are working to pay for someone else's success.How is this at all related to social works programs? What does "social works program" even mean by the definition of the author?
This is the only one I'm taking out. This has to do with tax payer money in my city being forcefully taken from the payers to fund something they won't make a prophet from. They loose money and get nothing in return.
Oh, and for the record, I'm not a Republican. I don't know why you liberals think all fiscal conservatives are Republicans. Kind of ignorant really.
Sega and Nintendo fan group on FacebooklBe Billy's Followerl Wii U name: Billy_Martin l PSN: Opackersfan
At 3/1/10 02:36 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:Source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_pov erty_rate_timeline.gif
At 2/28/10 04:50 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: America donates more to charity than any other country, and interestingly also has the greatest tax deductibility for charity donations. If we have no tax (and hence people have greater disposable incomes), then obviously there would be an even greater inclination still to donate to charity. On net balance, I can guarantee you the poor would be better off.
Wait, you think that by removing removing the (tax deduction) INCENTIVE towards charitable donations, that they will increase by virtue of individuals being more wealthy?
Wow, that's naive, and completely counter to this Rand kick you seem to be on.
"What would happen to the poor in an objectivist/free society?"
Rand: "If you wish to help them, you will not be stopped"
(Paraphrased from The virtue of selfishness.)
Problem being that probably 95+% of people will say the exact same thing.
Perhaps, except they won't be allowed to initiate force or fraud against anyone, and even still, it would be in a citizen's best interest to pay towards a nation's police/military to prevent corporations from becoming powerful with the use of force.
This assumes that individuals would be well-informed enough to make such a concerted effort, which would be highly unlikely in such a system.
Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Glad to see you've evolved your posts into PARAGRAPH form, SadisticMonkey. *wink*
At 2/28/10 02:06 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Teach a man to fish, and you lose a Democrat voter.
Give a man a fishing pole, and the Republicans call it socialism.
Anyway, here's the deal, Neo-Whig guy: Bitching about "social programs" is a grossly oversimplified and uneducated argument. Public schools are "social programs;" the justice system is a "social program;" anything the government provides to aide the populace in any way, shape, or form is a "social program." Vaguely labeling the policies of fiscal liberalism with the term "social programs" doesn't do anything for your argument.
You mention in your blog a museum being erected in Peoria; you claim the taxpayers get no benefit from said museum. Um, hello, they get a MUSEUM. I can understand how you would forget about the museum, since you were so angry about the museum, but come on! Museums offer entertainment and education to the citizens of Peoria and anyone who happens to visit Peoria. Since people are visiting the museum, the museum needs to employ ticket people, security people, and so forth, meaning there are more jobs. Now, I'm no economist, but isn't having more jobs considered a good thing? So yes, the good people of Peoria have to pay a little extra, but the notion that they get nothing in return is completely false.
Your post also states that social programs give failing businesses a second chance. I assume you mean corporate welfare, but I can't be sure because it only says "social programs." Assuming that you do mean corporate welfare, though, I agree; if we're going to hack away at restrictions on businesses (which we did under Bush), then corporate welfare is a terrible idea, because we wind up spending billions of dollars to save companies that exploit their customers and workers. Okay, that I can get my head around. You almost have a good point there!
And then you come to personal welfare. Oh, this is my favorite part. You insist that there aren't enough people who qualify for welfare to make welfare a worthwhile investment. Well, just in the logic of your argument, what's the point of abolishing it, then? Leaving welfare intact gives a little help to those desperately in need, and since there aren't many collectors (seeing as so few people qualify), the tax increase must not be that big. You also argue that the majority of people who would qualify for welfare live with people who can support them financially. Therefore, they would not collect welfare; therefore, we taxpayers don't pay as much. Oh, see what I did there?
Anyway, yes, welfare is costly; between 1965 and 2000, welfare cost American taxpayers roughly $8 trillion dollars total. That's an average of about $23 million a year (these are ballpark figures; bear with me). Meanwhile, the federal government has spent nearly $3.5 billion on the War on Drugs so far this year. "So far this year" meaning "in two months." In two months, we spent well over ten times more on the War on Drugs than what we spend, on average, on personal welfare in one year. That seems like a lot more money, doesn't it? Huh. Maybe welfare's not the biggest expenditure we should be focusing on.
Oh, and finally, you don't know what socialism is. In socialism, all production and distribution is regulated by the community. In America, people own productive means and trade on their own terms. America does not have socialism. America will probably never have socialism. We have limited government interference in the market, yes, but if you're calling that socialism, then you're calling for anarchocapitalism, which is completely unreasonable. Whew, okay, I'm done.
"Life is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it." - Tom Lehrer
At 3/1/10 09:13 PM, peanutfoot932 wrote: Anyway, yes, welfare is costly; between 1965 and 2000, welfare cost American taxpayers roughly $8 trillion dollars total. That's an average of about $23 million a year (these are ballpark figures; bear with me)
8 trillion divided by 25 is actually 228 BILLION a year.
1000 times your number.
At 3/1/10 09:13 PM, peanutfoot932 wrote: $23 million a year
Whoops, that was a gross miscalculation. It's actually $230 billion. Boy, is my face red. Ignore my last point.
"Life is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it." - Tom Lehrer
At 3/1/10 04:08 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote:At 2/28/10 02:49 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Conclusion: this blog contains nothing of substance and should not be used as the basis for one's opinion on social works programs. Ignore the link, and let's have an honest discussion on the matter.I don't have time to go by these one by one. You say that blog contains no substance for the matter, but I don't see where you're drawing that conclusion from.
Total lack of data, sources, or evidence of any kind to support the claims you were making.
You just took snippets of what I said while you ignored the rest.
The snippets I quoted were the most significant things you wrote. Everything else was extra banter that just took up writing space here. And I did read the entire thing.
Like I stated plainly, if people have less social programs then they pay less taxes which puts more money in their wallet. That's a great argument on the matter.
And who suffers from your slashing of social programs? Who doesn't benefit from the extra money, if they get any of it at all? That's why I was asking for specifics on which programs should be cut and why; still, you continue to generalize social programs as one unified lump of wasteful spending, without providing any details. Such ambiguity is only cause for disregard.
This is the only one I'm taking out. This has to do with tax payer money in my city being forcefully taken from the payers to fund something they won't make a prophet from. They loose money and get nothing in return.In Peoria, the tax payers are paying for a museum to be erected and the tax payers get absolutely nothing back from it. In other words, people are working to pay for someone else's success.How is this at all related to social works programs? What does "social works program" even mean by the definition of the author?
One problem: didn't the city vote for it?
Still waiting on how you define "social program."
Oh, and for the record, I'm not a Republican. I don't know why you liberals think all fiscal conservatives are Republicans. Kind of ignorant really.
For the record, I'm not a liberal, and I wasn't talking about you when I said "Republican."
people don't have enough money to support their families...because they're being taxed to death by the
government
Okay, I'm going to address this real quick:
No, they're not. Compared to most other first world countries, we actually have pretty low income tax rates, and we've held a stable economy and sufficiently wealthy populace with much higher ones.
"Life is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it." - Tom Lehrer
At 3/1/10 09:13 PM, peanutfoot932 wrote:At 2/28/10 02:06 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Teach a man to fish, and you lose a Democrat voter.Give a man a fishing pole, and the Republicans call it socialism.
Exactly.
This reminds me of the whole thing with Scratch Beginnings, which is supposedly an answer to Nickel and Dimed.
Sure, the guy made a successful life with just a few dollars in his pocket... but what he glosses over is the fact that he used SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS such food stamps. (But I love the part how he stresses the part about how he didn't "beg." Yet-- to me at least, food stamps is on par to that level.)
Fact is that there is a wonderful thing called self-initiation. But for the most part, people start with a little help.
Teach a man to fish, he will either be a grateful man who may teach others.
Otherwise... he's republican.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
