Originally posted by normbenignIts a biblical hangover. To whom much is given, much is expected. Remember the parable about the talents? The master wanted an increase of 5 from the one he gave 5 to, and so on... Who would have thought that number 1 carried a pocket Gideon's in his back pocket!
You have a strange concept of equitable.
Originally posted by normbenignYes, the poor also benefit. Most people benefit. Hurray!
Don't the poor also benefit from the activities of government, in fact the justification is usually that the poor need the help.
One group of beneficiaries gets direct financial aid, welfare, tax credits, negative taxation, and another group provides the resources to do these things. You can argue all day that somehow they benefit tangentially, howeve ...[text shortened]... ion, it isn't much of a stretch for the poor to just eliminate the government as middle man.
One group of beneficiaries gets direct financial aid, welfare, tax credits, negative taxation, and another group provides the resources to do these things. You can argue all day that somehow they benefit tangentially, however these benefits can't be measured.
Don't you mean: "I ignore the empirical evidence for these benefits?" Crime is lower in, say, Sweden. Education is better. People do trust others and government more. You can easily look up all the stats on nationmaster.
On a philosophical level, if a society makes the moral case that taking from those who have and giving to those that don't is a moral action, it isn't much of a stretch for the poor to just eliminate the government as middle man.
A recent poll has shown that 76% of the population in Holland trusts the government. I'd say they're pretty happy with the government as middle man.
To all of you socialists out there I suggest you read the book "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. It's short, easy to read, and basically lays waste to all of your arguments far more eloquently than I ever could.
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
For those of you still interested, I recommend the book "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek.
http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents-Definitive-Collected/dp/0415035287/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233530209&sr=1-1
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMention of PJ Proby is always uncalled for. Whether that makes you ccvnt, I cannot say. Mind you, I always thought Robert plant was ccviix, actually, and Jimmy Page a tad older.
The mention of Van Morrison invokes the spectre of PJ Proby -- as provocative and embarrassing as an Objectivist at an Oxfam cake sale.
Originally posted by ericmittensThat's probably a book I should read; according to Wikipedia it's based on the broken window parable, a strong argument for capitalism-based socialism. However, reading through the chapters' titles, the book seems to be more about why price-fixing, minimum prices, minimum wages and protectionism are not economically sound, which has nothing to do with socialism per se; he just appears to disagree with high taxes, probably based on some obsolete libertarian dogmas.
To all of you socialists out there I suggest you read the book "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. It's short, easy to read, and basically lays waste to all of your arguments far more eloquently than I ever could.
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
For those of you still interested, I recommend the ...[text shortened]... cuments-Definitive-Collected/dp/0415035287/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233530209&sr=1-1
Originally posted by ericmittensYes, both are excellent eric.
To all of you socialists out there I suggest you read the book "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. It's short, easy to read, and basically lays waste to all of your arguments far more eloquently than I ever could.
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
For those of you still interested, I recommend the ...[text shortened]... cuments-Definitive-Collected/dp/0415035287/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233530209&sr=1-1
Originally posted by no1marauder"That's going to "bankrupt" the richest country the world has ever seen in Whodey's warped view"
No, his objection to social security is that older people are "ungrateful" enough to keep living after they can no longer work thus requiring society to make sure they are provided with a small allowance so they can live. That's going to "bankrupt" the richest country the world has ever seen in Whodey's warped view.
The richest country in the world is more than 10 trillion in debt, and sinking fast.
Originally posted by no1marauderNowhere have I said that the poor ought to be taxed at higher rates or in higher amounts than the rich.
Your bizarre conception that the poor should be taxed at higher rates than the wealthy is a philosophy that is big in mental institutions and corporate board rooms, but nowhere else.
I do think that they have a stake in their government, and ought to be charged accordingly.
For example, gasoline tax is for building and maintaining roads. The more you use the roads, burning gasoline, the more tax you pay.
In many government services, a directly opposite relationship exists. For example, police and fire services are far more likely to be utilized by the poor.
How about education, and health care? How about social welfare programs? Utilized more by the poor. At least, if income is to be taxed, the poor ought to be paying the same rates, as this would still be a significantly smaller portion of the overall revenue. It would mean that politicians could not promise stuff that the poor would presume someone else was going to pay for.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra""I ignore the empirical evidence for these benefits?" Crime is lower in, say, Sweden. Education is better. People do trust others and government more. You can easily look up all the stats on nationmaster.
Yes, the poor also benefit. Most people benefit. Hurray!
[b]One group of beneficiaries gets direct financial aid, welfare, tax credits, negative taxation, and another group provides the resources to do these things. You can argue all day that somehow they benefit tangentially, however these benefits can't be measured.
Don't you mean: "I ignor ...[text shortened]... d trusts the government. I'd say they're pretty happy with the government as middle man.[/b]
You can cherry pick Sweden, but I suspect that it is more than socialism at work.
Zimbabwe and South Africa and Uganda don't have such a sparkling record. And again, spreading the wealth around only is a possibility when a measure of capitalism and free markets creates the wealth the socialists redistribute.