The Welfare State/socialism
Wheeee
Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
in Discussions
I've always wondered about welfare (esp. those of the European countries) alot. Why do people think that health services, education, employment, and a decent standard of living are rights to be granted and enforced by the government? What obligates those who work hard or are innovative to pull up those who don't/aren't? Why should the government take on the responsibility of charity, rather than leaving it to individuals? It seems to me that socialism tries to buck hundreds of millions of years of natural selection(if, indeed, this is how we came to be) - is that a good idea? Are we supposed to give up a good portion of our individual liberties and freedoms in order to satisfy some of the intellectual elitists' consciences?
Furthermore, should this be the province of the government? I've always thought that personal charity is much more effective than state-enforced charity.
This has been a pretty big mystery to me, and if someone could enlighten me, that'd be awesome.
Furthermore, should this be the province of the government? I've always thought that personal charity is much more effective than state-enforced charity.
This has been a pretty big mystery to me, and if someone could enlighten me, that'd be awesome.
Comments
I find it interesting that you included education in that list. Is it your beliefe that only those who can afford to go to school should be able to? That is quite possibly the worst thing I have ever heard. How can a poor child, who couldn't afford to go to school, work his way up to something better? Magic?
Similarly with helth care. "Sorry little timmy, your dady is a lazy bastard so you can't afford that medice needed to save your life". Oh yes, the oportunities are just there for the taking in America aren't they timmy?
Oh and what about employment? How could anyone earn enough to feed their family if they aren't employed? The government should do its best to ensure that enough jobs are available for any one who wants one to have one. And that even the lowest of these jobs pays enough for someone to feed and shelter themselves. And furhter more, when those jobs don't exist it is the governments responsibility to see those left out in the cold through the hard times. Yes, some may exploit this system, but would getting rid of it really be the answer? Maybe for those who are sure that such a thing could never happen to them, who are more considerend with the size of their paycheck than the life of annother human being. But certainly not for poor Joe Shmoe's kids, who got kicked out of his apartment with him, and who have to spend their days scouring dumpsters for edible food whist their father searches despiratly for a job that doesn't exist.
Such systems exist so that everyone has a chance to succede, if they work for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why should the government take on the responsibility of charity, rather than leaving it to individuals?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because people are, by nature, greedy. Not generous.
The freedom of those with money to use their money suppress the freedoms of those without money is not a freedom that people should have, I personally would have no qualms with anyone losing that particular freedom.
Why should those who work hard at good jobs and earn money be obligated tyo help those with less? I'd say the real question is: why are those who work hard at bad jobs and earn next to nothin obligated to live in squalor?
1. It is not a fair system. You only have a realistic chance to gain in social standard IF you get good education, which probubly means that you have to had parents with a decent amount of money.
2. Why should health care only be availble to those who can afford it? Saying that it should be is just pure evil, IMO.
3. You should not get a better life if you do not work a day of your life and your parents where rich then those who works hard day out for there whole lives and had poor parents.
4. If there is a severe lack of work you get owned by your employer, they can basically make your work hell. But you cant risk losing your job becouse then you wont have enough money.
Socialism is good becouse:
1. It is a humane system.
2. It is more fair, everyone has a chance to good education and reduced chance of losing everything due to an accident.
3. Should you fall the system will try to help you (and according to my experience, usually succeds) get back up again.
4. It is not throwing natural selection down the well. Why should the average farmer who produces life essential food get a worse life then the guy who makes jokes at TV?
5. In not to long we will have genetic engineering so natural selection wont matter anyway.
Similarly with helth care. "Sorry little timmy, your dady is a lazy bastard so you can't afford that medice needed to save your life". Oh yes, the oportunities are just there for the taking in America aren't they timmy?
That's a case of tough **** it really is. It's daddy's or mommy's job to ensure their children are taken care of not the government. If they're lazy and don't give a damn about their kid what do you think that kid will be like in the future. It's cold and harsh but so what welcome to the real world
And the employment thing. It's your responsibility to get a job not for the government to assign you one. There's also a few labor organizations that will employ lamborers on construction sites and road work. They pay you by the day but it's hard work. It's not fun and it's brutal work but if you give a damn about your family and kids you'll ensure that they get taken care of whether or not you like doing the job. There's also things called trades. Those aren't outsourced like menial computer jobs that an indian can do 4,000 miles away with 2yrs education.
Part time-laborers make ****, are treated like ****, and get **** for work. It's barely the kind of pay you can live on, let alone "take care of your family" on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's a case of tough **** it really is. It's daddy's or mommy's job to ensure their children are taken care of not the government. If they're lazy and don't give a damn about their kid what do you think that kid will be like in the future. It's cold and harsh but so what welcome to the real world<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So when you have a kid who's lived his entire life in poverty, who has no skills, who has had to learn to steal just to survive from an early age, who's problem is it when this kid grows up, leaves his parents and keeps on doing the only thing he knows how to do? Now it's everyone's problem, therefore it should be everyone's problem from the start to prevent things like that from happening.
Similarly with helth care. "Sorry little timmy, your dady is a lazy bastard so you can't afford that medice needed to save your life". Oh yes, the oportunities are just there for the taking in America aren't they timmy?
That's a case of tough **** it really is. It's daddy's or mommy's job to ensure their children are taken care of not the government. If they're lazy and don't give a damn about their kid what do you think that kid will be like in the future. It's cold and harsh but so what welcome to the real world
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It dosent have to be the real world. Besides work does not mean you are rich nor does No Work equal laziness.
In a bad time when work is scarce, should children die becouse of it? What if my parents got shot and permamently injured in a robbery? Should the system leave them in the dirt? Not helping their sick children is just kicking on those lieing down.
Heartless, unnecasesry and selfish.
If you have a goddamn kid and you don't have a career or a stable job you're just asking for goddamn trouble. Sorry I don't take pity on those who sit there and cry poor me. You do what it takes to earn a living it doesn't matter if you don't like it.
You either adapt to the changes as they come or you get left in the dirt pure and simple? Can't find the line of work you want ? Oh well get a menial labor job or llearn something else just do what it takes you don't sit there and point at the government and say I NEED A JOB GIVE ME ONE you get off your goddamn **** and get one.
Intiative get some
ADAPT ADJUST IMRPOVISE OVERCOME don't come crying to the government because they won't support your ****. And you know what I don't want my paycheck to get smaller supporting those other people. Is it selfish? Damn right but you know what it's about me and my family and providing the best I can for them not providing for some other person because they lack the will power or a job is "below" them so they get government aid.
Don't like it. Go cry.
How bout this you give half your paycheck to some poor impoverished family every week or 2 and see how you like your extra money going away.
And, what if some guy broke into your home. Knocked you out and then removed all 4 of your limbs. Then bandaged you up and sent you to a hospital so you surived. What would you do?
And again you are associating lack of money with laziness. That is rarely the case, I have never met one person who would refuse to work if they could, after all they just lose way to much money on it.
If you have a goddamn kid and you don't have a career or a stable job you're just asking for goddamn trouble. Sorry I don't take pity on those who sit there and cry poor me. You do what it takes to earn a living it doesn't matter if you don't like it.
You either adapt to the changes as they come or you get left in the dirt pure and simple? Can't find the line of work you want ? Oh well get a menial labor job or llearn something else just do what it takes you don't sit there and point at the government and say I NEED A JOB GIVE ME ONE you get off your goddamn **** and get one.
Intiative get some
ADAPT ADJUST IMRPOVISE OVERCOME don't come crying to the government because they won't support your ****. And you know what I don't want my paycheck to get smaller supporting those other people. Is it selfish? Damn right but you know what it's about me and my family and providing the best I can for them not providing for some other person because they lack the will power or a job is "below" them so they get government aid.
Don't like it. Go cry.
How bout this you give half your paycheck to some poor impoverished family every week or 2 and see how you like your extra money going away. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have no idea how the world works, do you? If you get yourself a crappy job, you're still not gonna make enough to live, no matter how hard you work. People who are struggling with that aren't lazy, they simply do not make enough to live. Why should they starve to death if they work as hard if not harder than you, besides the fact that you are too selfish to help them?
Why should a famous comedian earn more then a farmer. The farmer most likely works harder and provides essential food. The comedian is just entertainment.
1.) Capitalism's ideal is simple: if you earn capital, that is your capital, you can do what you want with it.
2.) Capitalism allows people to go as high as they can, not as high as they're allowed to be.
3.) If you aren't willing to work hard and progress, you will fall behind.
Socialism:
1.) It is a limiter, meaning that people can only go so high, which is not very high in most cases.
2.) People have very limited choices as to what they will do with their capital.
3.) It encourages laziness by forcing the overall workforce to support those who don't want to work as hard.
4.) Most dangerously of all, it feeds the "I am owed something" mentality. This makes adults become dependent on government, and therefore weaker/lazier.
I will not be cared for. I will not be looked after. My capital is mine, and no one else is entitled to it but me and possibly my family. In order to preserve my hard earned capital I will be willing to help those I know back on their feet if they need it, because my success is built off of the people around me.
Do unto others what you want done to you, but without government prodding or coersion.
Sweden is a socialist country. I live there, we have a socialist goverment for many decades. It works.
Socialism however does, only the essential things (education, healthcare) and then not even all (food) is owned by the state. Thus you can get a lot richer if you are lucky/smart/strong enough. But if you are not you get aid from the goverment, it is basically enough for you to have shelter, food, heating, hot water and phone and maybe get a newspaper everyday. Would you not like to add a TV, PC, air conditiong, the ability to go out ossocianally and internet to that list by working? As I said I dont know a singel person who has refused work.
The Labor party in UK is capitalistic? I dont know much about UK politics but Tony Blair is a member of the Labor Party and the Labor party dosent sound that capitalistic to me.
America is not a capitalist country, it is a Bourgeois-Socialist country.
If you have a goddamn kid and you don't have a career or a stable job you're just asking for goddamn trouble. Sorry I don't take pity on those who sit there and cry poor me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What if it was you? Hm? What if you were born into a lazy family, and they were unable to afford to take propor care of you? Is that YOUR fault? Should you be condemned to miserable health because YOUR PARENTS are lazy? EVERYONE should have the chance to succede, to persue LIFE, liberty, and happiness, so they should get that chance, even if their parents are the laziest ***tards on earth.
I still haven't heard anyone answer to my question:
Why is it the government's province to enforce these rules? It is true that someone might use their extra financial capital to 'suppress the poor' and 'keep the working man down', but isn't that a matter for a court to decide, and not for legislators?
Sure, health care costs a lot. I know; COBRA costs about 500$ a month per person. However, I attribute much of that to wasteful marketing and frivolous legal expenditures. But since when is health insurance a right? If you get into a car accident and don't wear your belt, and end up hospitalized, why should the state pay for your recklessness?
Besides, in America, most of the tax burden is placed on the middle class and upper-middle class, i'm sure you've all heard and seen the news reports about the uber-rich setting up offshore bank accounts to protect their money from taxation...how is that a fair system? I would wager that philanthropic contributions from wealthy people far exceed the amount of taxes they pay.
Also, whenever bureacracy is involved, there is the chance of corruption and quite a bit of waste. So, how is this superior to allowing capitalism to run its course, with some fair minimum wage laws?
*edit* <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What if it was you? Hm? What if you were born into a lazy family, and they were unable to afford to take propor care of you? Is that YOUR fault? Should you be condemned to miserable health because YOUR PARENTS are lazy? EVERYONE should have the chance to succede, to persue LIFE, liberty, and happiness, so they should get that chance, even if their parents are the laziest ***tards on earth. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is where the state steps in and tries to find a foster home, since that would probably be considered to be criminal negligence.
*edit2*
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why should a famous comedian earn more then a farmer. The farmer most likely works harder and provides essential food. The comedian is just entertainment.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This point has already been addressed, but just to restate - because everyone can farm, not everyone can entertain large numbers of people.
Having a child is hardly a choice. You can try and have one with your partner most certainly of course but once it's there you cant exactly undo the decision and if the government says your up **** creek without a paddle or canoe your only choices are to send the kid to an orphanage where he'll most likely get sexually abused or sell him/her into prostitution.
Being fired from ones job is ALSO not a choice. Your employer might decide he doesnt like the way you tie your shoes and fire you there and then, there goes your salary, your savings go down the toilet trying to support your family and your stuck rummaging through garbage to get food.
And last time I checked it was government medical programs that helped to conquer TB, Whooping cough and other easily curable but deadly diseases.
Education serves to break the poverty cycle so that ALL CITEZENS OF A COUNTRY HAVE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Welfare serves keep you out of the poverty cycle (I have NEVER seen an unshaven shabbily clothed man get a job. I wonder why, something to do with appearence perchance?) and keep you afloat. Kind of like the branch that saves you from falling off a cliff. You still have to pull yourself up.
Free healthcare wins on grounds of compassion alone. A society in good health is a society that can work for longer and harder then one that doesnt from a utilitarian point.
Chem, I'm truly sorry you see things such as free education, welfare and healthcare as negative things but honestly if you had no money and no job and were utterly unable to earn any kind of money legitamately, you may see the benefit of the system.
The people that exploit the system on the other hand, deserve to be cut off from the system. It's there to ensure that you can get back on your feet and become a productive member of society once more.
Unless you can prove that you are looking for a job and have been knocked back repeatedly you should honestly be cutoff from welfare.
By the way, for those that dont know about the poverty cycle...
1. Mr. Breadwinner gets fired due to circumstances beyond his control.
2. Savings quickly evaporate due to buying necessities (food, clothing, bills).
3. Debt begins to mount, ends fail to meet
4. Nobody wants to employ Mr. Breadwinner because of
A. Shabby Clothen/Unclean appearence (due to poverty)
B. His skills are unneeded by any business or firm
C. Someone with better skills then Mr. Breadwinner comes along (due to affluent family and excellent education).
5. Mr. Breadwinner finally gets a job after his family is booted out of it's home working on roads. It pays 80 cents an hour becuase thats all they would take him for.
6. The Breadwinner family move to more affordable accomadation after spending a week or so sleeping in the streets. Their Five Star Suite comes complete with urine soaked matress, rats, and peeling wallpaper.
7. Mr. Breadwinner dies on the job because his employer was pushing him and others to work harder, leading to the unsafe conditions that lead to Mr. Breadwinners demise. Since the company doesnt give rats **** about Mr. Breadwinner because there were a hundred more unemployed goons after HIS job, no compensation is awarded to the Breadwinner family.
8. Mrs. Breadwinner goes into prostitution to earn money to put dinner on a three legged and very creaky dinner table.
9. The kids, not in school and becoming ever more aware of their povertious plight go to picking pockets for a living, bringing in a modest income.
10. Years pass with no improvement. Charlie Breadwinner gets thrown in jail after being caught robbing a house for food and some money. Julie Breadwinner has gone into prostitution as well. Mrs. Breadwinner has died of Syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases either due to unprotected sex or because of faulty condoms.
11. Charlie Breadwinner eventually gets out of jail and comes back a hundred times worse then before. Julie Breadwinner is raped and murdered in a dark alleyway.
12. Charlie Breadwinner manages to find someone special in this time. He's a proffessional thug now, a drunk, a drug addict, and extremely brutal at times. The second generation of Breadwinners have a lot to look forward to.
Welfare, Healthcare and Education prevent Crime and enable all to become prosperous without having to resort to desperate measures. If you think that these are unnecessary and should be removed I'd like to see what happens should you yourself get fired and are unable to get a job or legitamately earn money.
When you fall on desperate times you will want somone to prop you up until you can get back on your feet. When you are well off, your tax dollars go to helping those less fortunate then yourself (amongst other things of course).
In all honesty I'd like to hear the opinion of someone who doesnt have a job and isnt on welfare. Oh wait, I forgot, they dont have an internet connection OR a home and because they havent had much of an education they probably wouldnt be very articulate.
GG.
Sure, it's a heartbreaking story, but I just don't see how it's the government's duty to force everyone else to help the guy out. There are always community resources that you can tap into, if you're willing.
I don't understand, are you saying it should be somoene's job to enforce this stuff, just not the federal gov's?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But since when is health insurance a right? If you get into a car accident and don't wear your belt, and end up hospitalized, why should the state pay for your recklessness?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what if you aren't so reckless, but simply can't afford insurance? You're just **** out of luck?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides, in America, most of the tax burden is placed on the middle class and upper-middle class, i'm sure you've all heard and seen the news reports about the uber-rich setting up offshore bank accounts to protect their money from taxation...how is that a fair system?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not a fair system, you won't be getting any arguments from a socialist on that. I don't what you're trying to get at here. Any socialist state that had the power to tax the rich in the first place would certainly have the power to somehow get to the money that any rich people have hidden away off-shore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, whenever bureacracy is involved, there is the chance of corruption and quite a bit of waste. So, how is this superior to allowing capitalism to run its course, with some fair minimum wage laws?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because when fair minimum wage laws are in place, capitalism ceases to run its course. Minimum wage laws are inherintly a socialist construct. Is it therefore so much a of a stretch that the small amount of equality provided by minimum wage laws be applied to other areas such as taxation?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is that the responsibility of the government? Having a child *is* a choice, unless you're raped or something. In which case that would be something for the civil/criminal courts to recompense.
Sure, it's a heartbreaking story, but I just don't see how it's the government's duty to force everyone else to help the guy out. There are always community resources that you can tap into, if you're willing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because if we don't help the guy out now, society will pay for it later. Read my previous post on the subject.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This point has already been addressed, but just to restate - because everyone can farm, not everyone can entertain large numbers of people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because everyone can farm does not mean you can treat farmers like crap. Farming is a very hard job, and for more essential to your well-being than a comedian. Conservative slways complain about people on welfare being just lazy and taking money away from those who clawed their way to the top and earned their money. Well a farmer works a whole crapload more than most any entertainer, and what they do it essential to everyone in a society, but yet in this case is payed less than a person who gets up on a stage and talks for an hour or two a night, giving the audience a lark that they could just as easily do without. how is that right?
*edit*<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't understand, are you saying it should be somoene's job to enforce this stuff, just not the federal gov's?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah. why should the government be involved in this?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not a fair system, you won't be getting any arguments from a socialist on that. I don't what you're trying to get at here. Any socialist state that had the power to tax the rich in the first place would certainly have the power to somehow get to the money that any rich people have hidden away off-shore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
um, care to back that up? i was under the impression that the current european socialist states also suffered from this problem
*edit*<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because if we don't help the guy out now, society will pay for it later. Read my previous post on the subject.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
could you post a link? I don't see it.
*edit*<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't understand, are you saying it should be somoene's job to enforce this stuff, just not the federal gov's?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah. why should the government be involved in this? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who esle is gonna do it? Do you expect corporate execs to suddenly stop making profits and give all their extra money away to their workers out of the goodness of their hearts?
And I would say extra taxes do help prevent the "inhumane exploitation" of people by helping provide them a better standard of living, in the same way that a minimum wage does except through social programs instead of directly providing money to them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->um, care to back that up? i was under the impression that the current european socialist states also suffered from this problem<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would make an argument that European Socialist states are not true Socialist states, they're just as bourgeois-socialist as we are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->could you post a link? I don't see it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was in response to one of Chem's posts in which he says children should be their parents' problem, not anyone elses.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So when you have a kid who's lived his entire life in poverty, who has no skills, who has had to learn to steal just to survive from an early age, who's problem is it when this kid grows up, leaves his parents and keeps on doing the only thing he knows how to do? Now it's everyone's problem, therefore it should be everyone's problem from the start to prevent things like that from happening.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would wager that philanthropic contributions from wealthy people far exceed the amount of taxes they pay.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Plenty of rich people give away their money daily.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I would say extra taxes do help prevent the "inhumane exploitation" of people by helping provide them a better standard of living, in the same way that a minimum wage does except through social programs instead of directly providing money to them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think our definitions of 'inhumane exploitation' differ greatly.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would wager that philanthropic contributions from wealthy people far exceed the amount of taxes they pay.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Plenty of rich people give away their money daily. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But yet they still have massive amounts of it. Funny how that works.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think our definitions of 'inhumane exploitation' differ greatly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe so. I would say "inhumane exploitation" would be any case when a person is payed less than a living wage, or is unable to afford the basic necessities of food, clothing, shelter, and health care.
And like it or not other people dont mind it that much. It provides a safety buffer for family, friends and other relatives when they fall on hard times. It prevents crime.
Unless of course you support the removal of the surplus population of the earth <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
{Edit}
Didnt see Reasas post, I dont really know, I kinda made it off the top of my while I was writing that post...
Still, link?
Do you think that these charitable donations even come close to the ammount of money nessesary to support public education? Let alone all of the other things nessesary to create oportunity for all in a society?
I find it funny that conservatives are so willing to let their tax dollars be spent on.... you know what? I'm just not going to go there.
Still, link? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Link? LINK!? WHAT DO YOU MEAN LINK!? READ THE BLOODY BOOK!?!!!1 <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It's not exactly same, but there are quite a few similarities.
Do you think that these charitable donations even come close to the ammount of money nessesary to support public education? Let alone all of the other things nessesary to create oportunity for all in a society?
I find it funny that conservatives are so willing to let their tax dollars be spent on.... you know what? I'm just not going to go there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said that rich people should pay for everything...so I don't understand what this is all about with rich people supporting public education. TBH I appreciate public education and regard it as necessary, I was just curious to see why other people thought it was the province of the government.
And I find it funny that conservatives aren't willing to let their tax dollars be spent on bureaucratic waste.