Originally posted by dryhumpWithout an economic system which is based on governmental measures, like enforcement of contracts, creation of legal tender, etc. etc. the amassing of wealth is impossible. Therefore, it only makes sense that those who benefit most from the system imposed by government pay for it.
In order to create these programs the government must take wealth from the people who produce it. Education does not produce anything that has intrinsic value. In fact, given the state of public education in this country, I would say public education is a negative. I really don't understand how you could argue that social security creates wealth, but I am interested to hear it.
Originally posted by no1marauderUnless you want to revert to pre-feudal times ...
Without an economic system which is based on governmental measures, like enforcement of contracts, creation of legal tender, etc. etc. the amassing of wealth is impossible. Therefore, it only makes sense that those who benefit most from the system imposed by government pay for it.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat was the rationale for that? New Labour have a similarly misplaced, if touching, faith in standardised education -- despite the patently disastrous results.
In addition, the recent "reforms" which rely almost completely on standardized testing even at very low grade levels are fundamentally flawed.
Originally posted by PinkFloydWell, there are crappy places and there are nice places in Europe. In some areas the standard of living is far higher than in the US, although the US has it pockets of general well-being of course, like Massachusetts.
Why would I want to live anywhere that is similar to a shytehole like Europe?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAnother example of "free market" thinking being applied inappropriately. It was decided that if the Federal government was going to supplement the funding of local school districts (as it has since the 60's though mostly in low income areas), the recipients of such aid must show that they are "improving" the service provided. No objective measure could be agreed on but standardized testing. Schools that fail to show adequate progress by the measure of standardized testing lose their funding.
What was the rationale for that? New Labour have a similarly misplaced, if touching, faith in standardised education -- despite the patently disastrous results.
This was supposed to emulate the "consumer sovereignty" model of classical economics. Rather predictably, the results have been disappointing to say the least. Here's an analysis I like: http://nochildleft.com/2006/sept06killing.html
4 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis is very scary thinking. If someone is wealthy and won't donate
If wealthy individuals would invest or donate the money they don't need, there would be no issue. The problem is that they primarily spend it on luxury goods...So therefore tax is a necessary evil to protect society against the incentive of the wealthy to waste their resources...
their money, then you advocate stealing from him. If the wealthy person
is willing to donate, then we don't need to.
This is thuggery, plain and simple. A person who is either skilled or
lucky enough to be wealthy should by virtue of being wealthy be able to
spend it on whichever frivolous luxury goods he wants. If they want to
use their 100-dollar bills as kindling for their fireplace, it's their right because
it's their money. You want to legislate moral responsibility, but you do so
by legislating theft. This is insane. Your justification for taxing is indeed
evil, for it demands that people who have earned property -- through luck
or merit -- that they surrender it to those who have not earned it -- either
through and absence of luck or merit. This sort of 'leveling the playing
field' is socialism, where we penalize the lucky and reward the unlucky,
where we penalize those with the skill and motivation and reward those
lacking both.
That's not to say that I like when the wealthy spend their money in a
fashion that I deem wasteful; indeed, I do not. I find it revolting. But
I'm not in favor or resorting to theft in order to compel them to a more
moral action, for that would make me scarcely different than they.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioTax isn't theft.
That's not to say that I like when the wealthy spend their money in a
fashion that I deem wasteful; indeed, I do not. I find it revolting. But
I'm not in favor or resorting to theft in order to compel them to a more
moral action, for that would make me scarcely different than they.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot intrinsically, no. But did you read the rest of my post? I'm not
Tax isn't theft.
objecting to tax in and of itself; I'm objecting to taxing an individual
because of what they decide to do with their wealth. If you took the time
to write this little, irrelevant one-liner, you should have taken a few extra
seconds to note what I quoted from KazetNagorra: 'If wealthy individuals
would invest or donate the money they don't need, there would be no issue.'
His justification for taxing the rich (or at least one of them) lies in his
disagreement with what the rich do with the money that they have legally
acquired, money that anyone could legally acquire. But he fails to define
what 'need' is. Again, I'll point out that people living at the poverty line
are richer than substantial percentage of the world. Our homeless have
better access to food and shelter than a significant fraction of the world.
Who 'needs' a cell phone? Who 'needs' a television?
To bombard the rich with taxes because we don't like the fact that they
have two swimming pools is, as I said, thuggery. To demand for no other
reason than because they are rich that they 'donate' rather than 'waste'
their money is indeed theft.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioNonsense. I suggest you read this short piece and consider the rationale behind the progressive income tax given the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility' http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-371303.html
Not intrinsically, no. But did you read the rest of my post? I'm not
objecting to tax in and of itself; I'm objecting to taxing an individual
because of what they decide to do with their wealth. If you took the time
to write this little, irrelevant one-liner, you should have taken a few extra
seconds to note what I quoted from KazetNagorra: 'I ...[text shortened]... that they 'donate' rather than 'waste'
their money is indeed theft.
Nemesio
I also suggest that if you are committed to the position stated above, you respond to this observation:
Without an economic system which is based on governmental measures, like enforcement of contracts, creation of legal tender, etc. etc. the amassing of wealth is impossible. Therefore, it only makes sense that those who benefit most from the system imposed by government pay for it.
Originally posted by NemesioThanks for restating your previous lengthy post just as lengthily.
Not intrinsically, no. But did you read the rest of my post? I'm not
objecting to tax in and of itself; I'm objecting to taxing an individual
because of what they decide to do with their wealth. If you took the time
to write this little, irrelevant one-liner, you should have taken a few extra
seconds to note what I quoted from KazetNagorra: 'I ...[text shortened]... that they 'donate' rather than 'waste'
their money is indeed theft.
Nemesio
I understood it fine, thanks. I merely object to your use of 'theft' because it's false. That was the relevance of my one-liner: to point out your false use of a term in building up your argument.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThanks for the butch argument, putz.
Thanks for restating your previous lengthy post just as lengthily.
I understood it fine, thanks. I merely object to your use of 'theft' because it's false. That was the relevance of my one-liner: to point out your false use of a term in building up your argument.
Nemesio