A bigger picture

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I have read Bastiats essay. What in this case is being 'destroyed' is the production factors assigned for the production of the goods and services consumed by the housewife. If everyone was out of work like the housewife, the economy would collapse. Hence, the housewife is not contributing to the economy by spending.

So treat each of the two women in the example the same tax them
both at 10% along with everyone else.
Kelly

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it is not the same difference. people on benefits get the public money. money better spent on other things or people who actually need it.

a housewife is spending the husbands money. you must look at it this way. a housewife is like an employee that only gets paid with food, shelter and clothing. for all intents and purposes it is like the housewife does ...[text shortened]... rked for those money. and how that somebody decides to spend the produce is their business.

If you are given money, why would you have to spend it all on what
you need, you don't think the money that was given to you is yours
and you can no spend it as you please?
Kelly

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Society would be better off if the housewife did something useful. Ergo, there is a loss to society.

Raising a family is useful.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So treat each of the two women in the example the same tax them
both at 10% along with everyone else.
Kelly

Tax what exactly?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Raising a family is useful.
Kelly

Of course, but read what I said.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Yeah, but the thing is, housewifes are not in that position.

Your example can't be compared to housewifes not doing extra work.

Yes, it can. If all housewives with grown-up children (try to) find a job, thousands of lives will be saved in a variety of ways, and the quality of life of the general populace would increase as well.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Because, for the fifth time, society did not provide them, individuals within society did.

Are you a disciple of the popular lefty fallacy that there is only one cake and we're all scrambling for our piece?

btw, it's not a belief, it's an "I know."

Could the husband provide her with the diamond dog collar without the help of society? No. So why do you keep insisting he can? Are you that afraid of amending your unfounded dogmas?

I don't believe in zero-sum economics and I don't know how you got that impression.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Tax what exactly?

My point, the activity must be income to get income taxed. If there
isn't an income you cannot tax them.
Kelly

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Of course, but read what I said.

I have read what you said, you seem to want to go after people for
just the reason you think they are lazy. That is not treating people
the same way that is singling them out for some reason, that being
your feelings.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
My point, the activity must be income to get income taxed. If there
isn't an income you cannot tax them.
Kelly

What is your point exactly?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have read what you said, you seem to want to go after people for
just the reason you think they are lazy. That is not treating people
the same way that is singling them out for some reason, that being
your feelings.
Kelly

I am not singling them out, I think anyone who is just sitting at home doing nothing should find something useful to do unless they are not able to do so.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What is your point exactly?

My point has been treat everyone equally, your view of equal is to
pass a judgment on who you think is doing something worthy, while
my view is treat each activity we engage in equally. If you are not
earning an income, you cannot be taxed, that does not mean the
person not working isn't adding to society, it only means they are
not earning an income. You placed a value judgment upon a person
for a personal choice between individuals, where one partner stays
at home. You automatically in your make believe person just called
them lazy. You painted them as bad as possible, your views about
stay at home moms I doubt would be much better since your view
is seems to be centered upon the personal choice made at staying
at home and not working a job.
Kelly

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I am not singling them out, I think anyone who is just sitting at home doing nothing should find something useful to do unless they are not able to do so.

Why? If a husband and wife or whatever has one working to support
two or three why would it matter to you? If they are not draining the
public money who cares, if they are taking out and not putting in that
is another thing all together.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
My point has been treat everyone equally, your view of equal is to
pass a judgment on who you think is doing something worthy, while
my view is treat each activity we engage in equally. If you are not
earning an income, you cannot be taxed, that does not mean the
person not working isn't adding to society, it only means they are
not earning an income. ...[text shortened]... to be centered upon the personal choice made at staying
at home and not working a job.
Kelly

So what is the valuable thing the housewives (without young children) are doing?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why? If a husband and wife or whatever has one working to support
two or three why would it matter to you? If they are not draining the
public money who cares, if they are taking out and not putting in that
is another thing all together.
Kelly

They are taking out and not putting in. I've explained extensively in this thread why this is the case.