Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Again, I don't have voting representation. But even if I did, my representative is simply part of the vote in the law/budget making process.
IDBillzFan Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 My morals say that the people who choose not to work, still don't deserve to be homeless, and starving. You're saying that everyone who chooses not to work in this country should, at the very least, be provided food and shelter. Just out of curiosity...if we're giving them room and board, they will also need... Telephone? Heating and air conditioning? Clothing? Transportation? Health care? Medicine? Internet access? Anything else?
Chef Jim Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 If it were decided by our elected representatives, who we voted in, that Bill Gates' wife's purse should be stolen and given to the homeless, then I guess so be it. Though, I think that's a pretty messy way to apply wealth re-distribution for the sake of improving society as a whole. And there's our fundamental difference. I think people should be encouraged to work, and be productive. But I'm not about to subscribe a death sentence to those that don't want to work. I'm also not about to reward them with anything more than a bunk bed in a homeless shelter, and some pretty basic meals. If you think living off the system only gets you a bunk bed in a homeless shelter and a daily bowl of soup you do not belong in this conversation.
Chef Jim Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) Sounds good to me Not sure who that was in response to but if it was to me you give up too easily. And gator take note. See what Dorkington is doing here He is actually debating. He has not called anyone a name.......yet. Edited January 19, 2016 by Chef Jim
Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Not sure who that was in response to but if it was to me you give up too easily. And gator take note. See what Dorkington is doing here He is actually debating. He has not called anyone a name.......yet. I know I'm in the minority here with my beliefs, and frankly I actually like that this country has a lot of different opinions on things, even if it can get frustrating sometimes. We're pretty damned lucky to have the freedom of speech, and the power of the vote. Also, life is pretty swell on my end, so I'm not gonna get too worked up haha.
Azalin Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Hey - It takes a lot of money to send a child through college. Is it fair that one student, who pays as much tuition as the next, should receive a lower grade for poor performance? After all, there might be extenuating circumstances - poor study habits, lack of self discipline, maybe not quite as smart as the next guy - any number of things. Why not then have the true achievers taxed of a part of their GPA, and do so progressively? After all, someone with a GPA of 4.0 can certainly afford it. That way all students can have a minimum standard achievement, instead of the top performers getting away with enjoying their scholastic success off the backs of the less fortunate? Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?
FireChan Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) Again, I don't have voting representation. But even if I did, my representative is simply part of the vote in the law/budget making process. So if you did vote yes to mugging a rich woman to give her money to the poor, it's not your fault it happened? Edited January 19, 2016 by FireChan
Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) Ideally, imo, both would be happening. Public education, public emergency services, public healthcare, and social safety nets provide a strong foundation for those who work hard to find success/move up the ladder. ****, I'm not supposed to participate anymore, sorry Edited January 19, 2016 by Dorkington
DC Tom Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Ends justify the means. Again, I stop well short of the idea that everyone should have the same, and be rewarded equally for their work. But I also, at the same time, believe that we have enough collective wealth and resources that we can ensure a certain minimum standard of living. There is plenty of wiggle room in between the extremes of economies and politics to figure out the right balance. How much collective wealth does this country have?
Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 So if you did vote yes to mugging a rich woman to give her money to the poor, it's not your fault it happened? I understand the point you're trying to make, in equating mugging a woman and progressive taxation. I disagree with it, no matter what sort of faulty comparison you make.
DC Tom Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 You're saying that everyone who chooses not to work in this country should, at the very least, be provided food and shelter. Just out of curiosity...if we're giving them room and board, they will also need... Telephone? Heating and air conditioning? Clothing? Transportation? Health care? Medicine? Internet access? Anything else? You forgot television. And a living wage. (Yes, I know you specified people who choose not to work. A living wage is still a fundamental right.)
Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 How much collective wealth does this country have? More than enough. Unfortunately we don't use that wealth very efficiently, and end up with deficits and debts.
FireChan Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) I understand the point you're trying to make, in equating mugging a woman and progressive taxation. I disagree with it, no matter what sort of faulty comparison you make. How is it a faulty comparison? In both cases, you are using force to remove the money they have earned (or married into, **** I totally !@#$ed this one up). Edited January 19, 2016 by FireChan
Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Ok, I think I covered the last questions. Now I'll shut up and listen, and maybe learn a thing or two from you fine folks. Cheers
DC Tom Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 More than enough. Unfortunately we don't use that wealth very efficiently, and end up with deficits and debts. How much?
Chef Jim Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 ****, I'm not supposed to participate anymore, sorry Ok you can come back.
keepthefaith Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 I've answered a couple of times already. My morals say that the people who choose not to work, still don't deserve to be homeless, and starving. Whatever minimal 'earnings' gets from government assistance isn't exactly the high life. All social safety nets, whether used by well meaning people, or not, are 'earned' on the backs of tax payers. In a progressive tax model, that means the backs of the rich.... who earn their money on the backs of the poor anyways. The circle of life, if you will. How is it that the rich earn their money off the backs of the poor? My morals don't like for people to be homeless and starving either but there has to be limits from government support otherwise it's an expensive way of life paid for the others. THAT is the most unfair. Take some of the unused government land, give it to groups of poor along with a water and electricity supply plus a stipend for building materials, crops and tools and let them live off the land like the Amish if they don't want to work in mainstream society. People do it and live a good quality of life and don't have to rely on the government. Without the religious tie, they can always return to the mainstream if they choose. Oh and once again, how do the rich earn their money off the backs of the poor?
Recommended Posts