|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Entitlements - what's so bad about them? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Entitlement - Wikipedia
quote: One could argue that anyone working and paying for food and lodging etc are contributing to the US economy, and that this entitles them -- they have a basic human right -- to at least a living wage. They are paying into the system when they purchase products and services and they deserve a fair dividend from their work. Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations
quote: The basis of such entitlement is seen in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and as such already applies to all human beings. Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare, Food Assistance, Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans programs, etc. are both entitlements and basic human rights. The more civilized a nation becomes the more aware it becomes of the burden it bears to ensure basic human rights for all people, and that this burden starts at home, taking care of the people in such a civilized nation. http://congressionalconstitutioncaucus-garr.../...nstitution
quote: The congress has the power to enforce basic human rights (promote the general welfare) and to fund them (power to lay and collect taxes). The burden of taxes should be pro-rated on the amount\degree of benefit one realizes from participation in the US economy -- those that benefit more should bear more of the burden of ensuring that this system continues. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/congress.htm
quote: Is the pursuit of happiness an entitlement, a right, or both? by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Thread copied here from the Entitlements - what's so bad about them? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I have no problem with limited entitlements as long as the family on welfare doesnt live above the means of the family that makes just enough to be ineligible. I think that fairness is a basic precept.
I dont want to end up being just above the cutoff point and having eligible people receiving more than I earn. The same amount (within reason) is ok, though. I make just under $25,000 per year, so I am the level just above them. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1019 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I'm not really understanding what you're saying.
Do you mean, for example, that if I get laid off and sign up for unemployment, that I should not be able to make more than $25,000 per year?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
well i suppose that wouldnt work now would it? If you paid more into the system you should be compensated accordingly. The problem arises when people who have not paid into the system end up taking more from the system than they gave.
Besides...unemployment is a form of insurance. There should be limits, I think. A guy who made $200,000 a year shouldnt automatically get that much unless he paid enough in. I think a capo should be set, if there isnt one already. Welfare is different. People should get just enough to eat and pay rent...basic subsistance needs. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5
|
Phat writes: Welfare is different. People should get just enough to eat and pay rent...basic subsistance needs. I hope you don't mind if the kids have ice cream and cookies once a year. What kind of communities do you build with children who get "just enough to eat...basic subsistance needs"?"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... as long as the family on welfare doesnt live above the means of the family that makes just enough to be ineligible. ... I disagree entirely. All people have just as much right to the pursuit of happiness, and to me that means more than just getting by. It means having the education and the opportunities to move up without stigma or prejudice. The worst "feel entitled" abuse imoshoie is kids that inherit millions from parents while doing sqat to earn it and then looking down on people that don't have that opportunity, as if their DNA were made of gold. So everyone should inherit from the success of the previous generation: 50% inheritance tax. Everyone should get $50.00 per day guaranteed income, and then what you earn is on top of that with no eligibility cut-off. Tax is 50% on all earnings over $50,000/yr. No loopholes. Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
To oversimplify a little, there are two kinds of people:
1: There are the "zero sum game" people. I think they are sometimes called "conservatives". As they see it, if you give entitlements to someone, then there is less left for them. Out of kindness, they might support very limited entitlements for a short term to help only the severely needy. But they will always be critical of entitlements, because they worry that what is given to others implies less for them 2: There are the "rising tides lift all boats" people. I think they are sometimes called "liberals". As they see it, a reasonable program of entitlements makes for a better society, and everyone benefits from that.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Maybe "unemployment insurance" should be separated from welfare. Unemployment insurance, which you pay into, would enable you to keep paying your mortgage, etc. if you lost your job. Welfare, which you don't pay into (directly), would give you enough to live on.
Besides...unemployment is a form of insurance. There should be limits, I think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I agree with all of your points except that I think there should be limited inheritance tax. Lets say that the heirs get to keep the first $250,000 and then tax them 50%.
When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I agree with all of your points except that I think there should be limited inheritance tax. Lets say that the heirs get to keep the first $250,000 and then tax them 50%. A progressive tax is always better than a flat one. I agree.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Right now, the limit is 6 million.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
To oversimplify a little, there are two kinds of people: 1: There are the "zero sum game" people. I think they are sometimes called "conservatives". As they see it, if you give entitlements to someone, then there is less left for them. Out of kindness, they might support very limited entitlements for a short term to help only the severely needy. But they will always be critical of entitlements, because they worry that what is given to others implies less for them 2: There are the "rising tides lift all boats" people. I think they are sometimes called "liberals". As they see it, a reasonable program of entitlements makes for a better society, and everyone benefits from that. I think you oversimplified a little too much. Let me simplify in a different direction and see how you like it. There are those who, out of habit or disposition, feel they should work for a living and pay their own way. There are also those who think someone else should support them. "You owes me!" is a good description for this type. The reasons for the "owes" are many and often meaningless. As I have quoted in my signature, "If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay"--Jerry Pournelle. Those who are "obliged to pay" might, if the burden placed on them is too great, just give up and join the other side. "Going Galt" is one phrase that describes it. Another way of looking at it is: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]." That was from Margaret Thatcher. As you noted above, "rising tides lift all boats." But falling tides lower all boats and pretty soon they are all sitting in the mud. If you look at the societies who tried to practice extreme forms of socialism or communism, you'll see this. North Korea is a prime example. Just compare with South Korea. Compare East and West Germany. You can only bleed the productive to give to the unproductive to a certain point, and then the productive will say "Hell with it." This is a lesson communists, the more extreme socialists, and other lefties simply can't learn. When they have run societies they have increasingly turned to authoritarian governments in an attempt to get more production from those who could produce, while removing all the incentives for them to do so. Didn't work, and never will. So, your #1 above is totally wrong. It is not "what is given to others implies less for them" but "if you take virtually all I have, why should I keep working?" It is hard to change human nature, although lefties of all stripes have been trying for decades--without success. And, your #2 would be valid if greedy leftists would quit trying to get more from the "golden goose," and work with human nature rather than against it. The progressive income tax is one example. If the tax rate was reduced as people earned more, almost everyone would earn more! The total tax base would be increased overall. People would work to have more income, rather than less. This is an entirely different way of looking at things, and unfortunately lefties simply can't see it. If you want less of something, just tax it. Lefties should learn from this, but they haven't yet and I doubt they ever will. So, go ahead and flame. Flames from lefties are as meaningless as the collective outrage they hurl at anyone who disagrees with them.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So you're a #1, zero sum type.
That was simple. When there is a shared endeavor and one person takes more than the others what do you call that? Are they entitled to a greater share? Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024