Entitlements - what's so bad about them?

Entitlement - Wikipedia

quote:

---

An entitlement is a guarantee of access to something, such as to welfare benefits, based on established rights or by legislation.[1][2] The term may also reflect a pejorative connotation, as in a "sense of entitlement". A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with a legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.

​

In the United States, an entitlement program is a type of "government program that provides individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal right...whenever they meet eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program. The beneficiaries of entitlement programs are normally individual citizens or residents, although sometimes organizations such as business corporations, local governments, or even political parties may have similar special 'entitlements' under certain programs."[3] Examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, most Veterans' Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs.[4][5]

​

Originally, the term "entitlement" in the United States was used to identify federal programs that, like Social Security and Medicare, got the name because workers became "entitled" to their benefits by paying into the system. In recent years the meaning has been used to refer also to benefits, like those of the food stamps program, which people become eligible to receive without paying into a system.[6] Some federal programs are also considered entitlements even though the subscriber's "paying into the system" occurs via a means other than monetary, as in the case of those programs providing for veterans' benefits, and where the individual becomes eligible via service in the U.S. military.[7]

---

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:

---

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

​

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

​

Article 23.

​

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

​

Article 24.

​

• Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

​

Article 25.

​

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

​

Article 30.

​

• Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

---

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:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

​

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ....

---

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:

---

... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...

---

Is the pursuit of happiness an entitlement, a right, or both?

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, : .

• Social Security should pay a living wage, it is a safety net, not a retirement plan, and if you want to retire on more then you should plan for that with an IRA.
  ​
• Likewise unemployment and welfare should pay a minimum wage. Disabilities should be covered through healthcare (expanded medicare\medicaid).
  ​
• So if everyone were given a US Economy Dividend that was a living wage amount, this could be run through IRS as part of taxes, and other departments could be closed. Minimum wage would not be an issue, and what anyone earns is on top of the basic living dividend, so you can work your way out of poverty. Because it would go to everyone there would be no cheating on eligibility.
  ​
• Feeding the bottom of the economic pyramid lifts all other levels. With a surplus of workers for jobs this would boost job creation by low and middle income people (where most new jobs are created). Trickle UP is a win-win proposition.
  ​
• Inheritance tax should be 50% -- why should heirs be entitled to millions their parents earned when they have not done anything for it? This would incentivise rich people to spend instead of hoard, and thus boost the economy.

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, : ...

Except in Massachusetts (there may be others): that is the federal limit.

Agreed, some base number could be set, similar to my proposed simple tax system of first $50.000 is tax free and all earnings from any sources above that taxed at 50%.Those that benefit most from the system pay the most to ensure the system keeps working.

Yes, however I do have a quibble: This is not really the opposite of "1: There are the "zero sum game" people. "A true dichotomy would be non-zero sum game, a synergy, where the result is greater than the sum of the individual parts.Synergy - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Synergy is the interaction of multiple elements in a system to produce an effect different from or greater than the sum of their individual effects. The term synergy comes from the Greek word synergia from synergos, meaning "working together".

---

Society is a synergy.You can also simplify it by:1. Top down economics
2. Middle out economics
3. Bottom up economicsConservative (Teabilly) Republicans are in favor of (1) -- trickle down economics -- in spite of it's absolute catastrophic failure ...Liberal Republicans (if any are left) and conservative Democrats are in favor of (2) -- current president for example, with more emphasis on rebuilding the middle class than helping the poorLiberal Democrats are in favor of (3) -- and I put Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders in this category.Curiously I have always found sound systems to be based on a firm foundations that are then built on to make finer constructions.Bottom up is natural and self-sustaining. Synergies occur naturally.Top down erodes the base and ultimately collapses. Housing market collapse is a prime example of the eroded base causing the failure, and the erosion was caused by greedy top banksters sucking money out of the system.Were the banksters entitled to the bailouts?Were the people entitled to bailouts? ... see Iceland.Edited by RAZD, : .

So when a CEO takes a large salary because they feel entitled to it, then someone else is obliged to pay ... which would be the workers responsible for the actual production ... correct?When a CEO gives themself a massive bonus for shutting down operations because they feel entitled to it (they worked hard to undo production after all), then someone else is obliged to pay ... which would be the workers that no longer have a job ... correct?

Indeed, greed is not a right nor a basis of entitlement. That has been going on here for a while -- looks like the big corporations are exporting this model around the world ...Wallmart workers are responsible for something like 34% of all food assistance (SNAP) in the US while they make record profits. So I don't shop there yet part of my tax money goes to help the workers and indirectly into the pockets of the Waltons (Wallmart owners). Hopefully your unions are in better shape than ours (they have been gutted and neutered pretty savagely in the last several decades - since Reagan, the first Teabilly).The right to form unions and bargain for better working conditions is a basic human right (UN declaration)The Occupy movement rose because of this, and the numbers of strikes and walkouts for low wages in the food industries are another result. This undercurrent of dissatisfaction has not gone away.This year is an OFF year election cycle (non-presidential) and the opposition party usually picks up seats.If the democrats can get it together and build a solid program of jobs, fair minimum wage, equal pay and oh by the way WE gave you healthcare ...If they can rally the young people and the single women to get out and vote it is feasible that the election could be a surprise ...... especially if all the GOP runs on is repealing obamacare ... taking healthcare away from people that now have (and like) it.Because they are not entitled to win more seats, no matter how much they have rigged the districts.

Indeed, and the Randroids (nice name btw) scream that the Fed is printing money, while the stock market prints much more imaginary value in the stocks and bonds that are sold and repackaged and resold.It's all a paper house of cards that comes tumbling down with the slightest rumble at the base ...

Yes, and there are several very successful socialist democracies in Europe where they have balanced capitalism with socialism to the benefit of all their citizens.So we know the lies of Faux Noise and the Teabilly crowd are lies they fool themselves with, not ones that fool those of us with open eyes.People are entitled to a fair shake, to an even playing ground, to respect and to just treatment -- it is their basic human right to have these.

Wrong, it is about recovering assets from those who have commandeered them for personal aggrandizement. Workers should get a fair and just compensation for their work, not sub-poverty wages and marked down hours. The real question is who is the proper owner of the assets, the one who steals from the workers or the workers that created the assets? The economy is made from the movement of money\assets, not by the having of money\assets: the more money\assets are moved the better the economy is.You should ask yourself "What happens when all the assets are in the hands of the few?" Who is seizing the assets then? Who will buy anything when they have no money?All money is, dear coyote, is a marker, and IOU, a piece of paper with an agreed upon value (and that agreed on value can change): it represents value, but what is the basis of the value? Wrong again. It requires that those who do the actual production share in the benefits of that production, rather than having it be expropriated by robber bosses who think they are somehow entitled to richness because they have the power to steal from the employees.It also requires that those that benefit from an economic system pay their share for the maintenance of that economic system -- a user fee if you will Production is absolutely no good without consumers, and consumers cannot buy without funds, and they can't get funds unless they are properly compensated for work they do. Ten people with a dollar each and something to sell is a better economy than ten people with one person having 10 dollars who has all the assets to sell.If selfish "producers" take all the money out of the system there will be no "game" ... and what happens when the workers decide not to play their game any longer? They go work elsewhere and spend money elsewhere -- what happens to your precious producers then?"Producers" are not magic people that are somehow better than other people, especially when you look under the covers. Yes, the greedy owner wanted more gold so he ruined the factory that actually produced it, shut it down, cut up the machinery, and laid off the workers ...... what's your point?Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.Edited by RAZD, : ..

Anyone not in the top 5% should not be voting republican if they want their concerns noted. Anyone who does is wearing a "kick me" sign. Vote libertarian or independent if you can't stomach voting for the conservative democrats ... (Obama and Clinton are to the right of Reagan, and at least are concerned with fiscal responsibility).

You should try it, basing concepts on rational thinking instead of old dead dogma. (a) I don't see any conflict there, and (b) what matters is how the constitution is interpreted by the current day politics ... else we would still have slavery, and only white male land owning men could vote. But having a level playing field is both a right and (thus) an entitlement, what you do from that point is what you achieve. Getting just treatment is also both a right and (thus) an entitlement. Basic human rights exist regardless of what the constitution or any law says. And some 75% of Americans, liberal and conservative support a living minimum wage, and we are seeing more and more people in favor of the new healthcare system (growing every day). Most people support equal wages for men and women, and virtually everyone wants to see income tax reform with closing of the loopholes and restoration of a just rate for everyone. Creationists tend to be conservative so that skews the rest of the population making non-creationists mostly liberal by default. Liberal and conservative are relative terms so the dividing line is 50-50 split with where the line is drawn moving. if 10% of the conservatives are creationists that leaves a majority of non-creationists being liberal. Not all conservatives are creationists.But one thing I think he is missing is that progressive liberals are not like he portrays them to be -- he is fighting a (common conservative) false image, and in that he is similar to your kind of creationist conservative. When the only places your vision of government lives is within Ayn Rand and Heinlein books (all fiction) you should do some critical thinking about the basis of those beliefs. Imho. Republican economic policies have been and continue to be abject failures.And if you truly want smaller government get rid of the military-industrial complex and stop subsidizing big corporations.Edited by RAZD, : ..

When that new wealth is properly shared. This is backwards: getting wealthy doesn't mean you actually did the work to produce that wealth. Let me tell you a personal experience:I used to work for a plant making a set of products. I was the designer of all new products, and working with crew leaders I also designed the assembly lines that were used, how stations set up for workers, with consideration of the ergonomics of their placement, orientations and usage of tools (which I also specified) and the time needed for each task during the production process and the bill of materials to be used.While I worked there the company went from local state distribution to international distribution, and I have seen MY designed products in Canada, Puerto Rico, California and points between. The product was known for quality construction and attention to customer needs.It was a family operation, and the owner\CEO of the company knew every employee by name and the names of their children and their ages. The plant was filled with happy workers, there were bonuses every year reflecting the success of the company.Then Charlie retired, he was bought out by Johnson Worldwide, for several million dollars (he said it was an offer he could not refuse), and Charlie also shared that with the employees generously.Johnson Worldwide decided they did not need a design department or new products, and I moved on to other employment (Michigan is a "right to work" state*). A year after that I happened to visit one of the dealers up in Maine, and asked her how the product was. She said the new product was crap and she couldn't sell it anymore. She showed me some samples, and it was obvious to me that the company had started using thinner material in production and quality control was lousy. Parts buckled because the thinner material was not stiff enough.Bean-counter managers had made a decision based on increasing profits without having the design parameters checked. If you take 10% out of the thickness of a material you can save a bundle in costs, but the stiffness is proportional to the thickness cubed ... so it is now only 73% as stiff.In two years the company was bankrupt, the people were laid off and the assets were sold to other companies.Johnson Worldwide is not a small fly by night company.So I ask you who produced the wealth, who were the innovators, who developed the resources and designed how they were used ...... and how did the people that were taking wealth out of the company (CEO top management etc) contribute to the production of that wealth? You have two examples from the same company, and the wealth taken out of the company (by CEO top management etc) increased under the second example. Did the second example produce more wealth?Be reasonable.* right to work is orwellian speak for no worker rights ... it means you have the right to work elsewhere when your services are no longer needed or if you don't like your current employment ... a right you've always had