LightningJoe
New member
Ha ha. Know much about inflation? Why do you think the costs are so high?
The Welfare State Mentality....
- Thread starter Jets2007
- Start date
Ha ha. Know much about inflation? Why do you think the costs are so high?
grymster2007
New member
Speaking of taxes, I thought all men were created equal? If that were the case, should not the required tax be just that? And every American be required to pay their fair share of the operating costs of the government?
Why wouldn’t we have a flat tax? Not based on a percentage of income, but a flat dollar amount levied on every American. Would that not be treating all men (and women) equal?
Somehow I’m sure some of you will tell me how unfair my thoughts are!
Why wouldn’t we have a flat tax? Not based on a percentage of income, but a flat dollar amount levied on every American. Would that not be treating all men (and women) equal?
Somehow I’m sure some of you will tell me how unfair my thoughts are!
The Tourist
Moderator
LightningJoe said:
Yes, I do. I was in finance during "my adult" working career.
As in any setting, things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
As in colleges and universities, the real money issues relate to how much revenue the school can generate. For example, a winning football team is important if wealthy alumni value that aspect and contribute large sums. To my knowledge, MIT does not have a football team.
It might come as a real shocker, but professors and doctors are not hired for their winning charm and delightful rapport with young knowledge-hungry students.
Staff do research, write books and papers and generate revenue dollars through grants, and again, alumni contributions.
Obviously, there's a shortfall because in reality almost no one cares if little Johnny ever gets that shiny new sheepskin. My degree is a crappy little red book with only facsimile copy signatures of graduation personnel.
The real rent is paid by taxes, lots of them. During the 1970's the public paid for over 2/3's of every dollar spent.
This is why I shake my head over the insults boomers hear about "sucking up all the real wealth." In truth, we built most of the modern stuff--we even built most of the stuff that was fixed.
If we didn't build it, we certainly financed it.
As Generation X and Y come to know the true burden of daily costs, their ire seems to build. However they are simply coming to grips with the "free lunch."
Their parents, most likely boomers, are now idle. We are not producing wealth at the same break-neck pace, hence our tax burden is dropping. The new producers must shoulder these costs.
That's simply part of being an adult.
JuanCarlos
New member
This neglects a few important ideas. One, while some people may not quite be able to grasp this, a dollar isn't necessarily "worth" as much to one person as to another. For instance, somebody pulling in seven figures would place a much lower value on, say, $100 that I would*...and further I would obviously place a lower value on $100 than somebody barely pulling in a poverty-level income. Essentially if you levied a flat $X tax (rather than X%) tax you'd be taking away money that those on the lowest rungs use to buy bread, while taking away money that those on the highest rungs use to buy yacht fuel.
Yes, in one sense this is quite fair. In another, it's most definitely not.
Additionally, it's arguable that those at the top of the economic ladder have benefited more, and do still, than those at the bottom. Yes, somebody living in the projects may get subsidized handing and maybe even a welfare handout...but a multimillionaire is still benefiting a whole lot more from the many services that the government provides. You don't see a vibrant upper class in places like Liberia, and those that are wealthy spend about as much (if not more) on things like private armies and bribes to the national army in order to secure their wealth (and life) than the average wealthy person her pays in taxes. Yes, everybody benefits from roads, police, and the military that keeps Chinese tanks out of Cincinnati. But again, it's arguable that those who have the most (and make the most) have the most to lose from a breakdown of law and order and/or invasion.
Now, note that this is just an argument for a flat X% tax (over a flat X$ tax). I suppose if we felt the burning need we could go into why any percentage-based tax should probably be at least somewhat progressive as well...but either way this is all tangential to the subject of this thread, so perhaps you (or anybody else who wants to discuss it) should start a tax thread if you're interested. I may show up.
* - Note that I realize that a dollar does have a fixed and absolute "value" at any given time...but the value that a person places on it (as in, how much they value it) can vary quite a bit. I forget the term I'm looking for (I don't pretend to know everything), but it's an actual economic concept.
ForksLaPush
New member
Yes, the welfare mentality is bad for individuals.
The government needs to do something about it.
The government needs to do something about it.
Actually, Unemployment Compensation is a fully employer funded system, you didn't pay into it. If you had no intention of actively seeking work then you stole those benefits which are meant for those who are unemployed through no fault of their own and are seeking employment and will take work if offered.
JuanCarlos
New member
Learn to read: I did actively seek work (as mentioned in the thread). I even documented this, as required by law. I would have accepted any suitable work offered (as required to continue receiving benefits). I just knew that I wasn't going to find work, because I was definitely starting school in 3 months (from the time I was released from activation). With each day the length that I would be able to work for any prospective employer shortened, as did my chances of any hiring me...as did the chances that any employer that would hire me would offer more than my unemployment benefits. Because according to the regulations, I was not required to accept a position that paid substantially less than my previous position (though this varies with the length of unemployment).
So yeah, I met every requirement and followed the law. As already mentioned in this thread. Consider that before you start throwing out words like "stole."
The military pulled me out of school, sent me to Iraq, then gave me the boot with three months before I could start school again. Hence, I was unemployed through no fault of my own, and unable to find work at a suitable wage.* My bills did not suddenly stop because of these circumstances. I qualified for unemployment insurance benefits as a stop-gap, so I drew them. What's the problem again?
To both you and 9mmHP, I say learn basic economics. Yes, the money technically comes from my employer. However, logic would suggest that the amount that employers pay towards unemployment insurance comes out of their employees paychecks; unless, of course, you're suggesting that an employer will just pay the employees what he would have if no such program existed and then takes the contributions out of his profits.
Which is unlikely.
Regardless of who actually directly contributes the money, unemployment insurance is in the end funded by employees, in the form of lowered wages across the board.
Much the same way that, despite the fact that I rent, I generally still indirectly pay property taxes; my landlord (and all his competitors) almost certainly takes those into account when setting the amount of my rent.
* - Note again that I was actually unable to find temporary work at any wage...I received no actual job offers, as I was up-front with all prospective employers with regards to the fact that I'd be quitting in three months to return to school.
While I can understand the retiree's plight..the fact remains that the Federal Government stole their social (in)security and now many retirees are of the mindset that because this money is owed to them they don't care how they get it, even though the reality is that they are receiving stolen goods...monies stolen from the younger generations by the federal government and fraudulently given to those who have already retired.
And that's the way the government works...they steal from Peter to pay Paul. That being said, what's a person to do? The retirees in many circumstances genuinely need their social (in)security benefits...but they do not have the right to those benefits at the expense of the younger generations..
It's a lose lose situation...but as long as the fraud continues to be perpetrated...the number harmed will grow ever larger.
And that's the way the government works...they steal from Peter to pay Paul. That being said, what's a person to do? The retirees in many circumstances genuinely need their social (in)security benefits...but they do not have the right to those benefits at the expense of the younger generations..
It's a lose lose situation...but as long as the fraud continues to be perpetrated...the number harmed will grow ever larger.
JuanCarlos
New member
Interestingly, wikipedia has an good comparison between Social Security and Ponzi schemes, including a rebuttal from, I assume, the SSA (it's not cited).
It is a bit different, including in some fundamental and important ways. The main problem we're running into now is some long-term and dramatic shifts in population demographics (baby boomers, as well as longer lifespans). But the primary difference between SS and a Ponzi scheme is that Social Security, even as a pay-as-you-go system, is actually sustainable in the long term if demographics remain stable. A Ponzi scheme is not.
I don't know.Mary Kay? Amway?There are a lot of millionaires that made it "legally" because they were selling a product.Typically cheap jewelry.Anyhow that's off on a tangent.I didn't mean it was exactly identical.But,it totally relies on new members in substantial enough numbers paying the necessary amount to meet the obligations.And,it is not happening.Now we have 3.3 workers for every retiree.As the average lifespan approaches 80 the ratio is dropping and may reach 2 to 1.Which means the average burden to the worker is going to be somewhere around $8000-$10,000 /year.Just in FICA.
LightningJoe
New member
Tourist:
What I meant was the high price of college is to some extent (and I would say mainly) caused by the subsidies you're saying young people can't do without today (you've been in finance; remember the supply/demand curve, macroeconomics 101). I think they could do very well without those subsidies. Two things would be true if there had never been any subsidies. 1] college would cost a lot less. 2] Fewer unsuitable people would go to college (i.e. they'd learn something useful for a person with IQ<125--like a trade). Since those subsidies have existed for decades, maybe there's no way to fix the problem now. Not sure about that.
It's true young people don't want to finance your 30+ year retirement. You didn't do anywhere near as much to finance the previous generation's retirement. They built the railroads and fought the Great War. Didn't you owe them?
I guess young people will just have to put up with the boomers while they wait for them to die. The tail end of the boomers and subsequent generations will probably have welfare for old people (means-tested Social Security) and investment-based retirement with tax breaks (401k/IRA). Those retiring now and for a decade or two, I think, should be the last with Social Security for all.
What I meant was the high price of college is to some extent (and I would say mainly) caused by the subsidies you're saying young people can't do without today (you've been in finance; remember the supply/demand curve, macroeconomics 101). I think they could do very well without those subsidies. Two things would be true if there had never been any subsidies. 1] college would cost a lot less. 2] Fewer unsuitable people would go to college (i.e. they'd learn something useful for a person with IQ<125--like a trade). Since those subsidies have existed for decades, maybe there's no way to fix the problem now. Not sure about that.
It's true young people don't want to finance your 30+ year retirement. You didn't do anywhere near as much to finance the previous generation's retirement. They built the railroads and fought the Great War. Didn't you owe them?
I guess young people will just have to put up with the boomers while they wait for them to die. The tail end of the boomers and subsequent generations will probably have welfare for old people (means-tested Social Security) and investment-based retirement with tax breaks (401k/IRA). Those retiring now and for a decade or two, I think, should be the last with Social Security for all.
JuanCarlos, I CAN read, even if you didn't mean to admit it. You've said two diametrically opposed things so I think you're the one who can't read...or are you just dishonest? This is the problem, the huge number of people who want to game the system and think it's somehow owed to you. It's not.
JuanCarlos
New member
Why yes, that is exactly what I said. And it's true, I did not intend to actually get a job. I knew it probably wasn't going to happen, and no I did not bother to spend all day every day looking for work. I instead spent that time getting to know my wife again, relaxing, putting my life back together, and preparing to restart my education.
However I did actively seek work, document this, meet every legal requirement, and follow all relevant laws and regulations. I actually had several callbacks...and each of those callbacks involved the prospective employer directly or indirectly asking what my medium to long-term plans were (just as I asked prospective employees when I was a hiring manager in the past). At which point I was honest; I would not be working there more than three (then two, then one) months. Oddly, that generally seemed to be the end of it. Had one of those employers offered me work (at a suitable wage, as in more than my unemployment benefits), I'd almost certainly have taken it. If not, I'd have ceased drawing benefits. Just as the rules require.
You can call it "gaming the system" if you want; I call it using a benefit available to me that I had paid in to (indirectly) my entire working life. Again: I was released from employment through no fault of my own, and unable to find suitable employment. So I drew unemployment benefits. I fail to see the problem.
Heck, to me I'd say this is one of the reasons the system exists. I was involuntarily terminated from employment through no fault of my own, and put into a situation for a short period of time where it was not possible to find work that would pay my bills.
Or do you think it's reasonable that a soldier returning from Iraq should have to either A) give up on ever completing college or B) end up overdue on all his bills, or C) lie to his prospective employers? Which is it? There is no D. Please choose.
By the way, consider the above a direct question; it is not meant rhetorically. I'd appreciate an answer.
Also, if you wish to further insult me take it to PM. I'd be more than happy to respond.
The Tourist
Moderator
LightningJoe said:
Well, we agree on something. Boomers are waiting for all of the Gen-Xers to die!
I mean, outcome based education, driving little plastic cars, and radiation leaking cell-phones more common than ear wax. Heck, most of the popular rap artists will shoot each other before I need a new batch of black T-shirts.
Seriously, the generation behind me does have a tough road. They will suffer higher taxes simply to maintain all of the mad spending done in "feel good" legislation.
Give you an example. On my local news today, one of the lead stories reports that Wisconsin bridges will now be outfitted with vibration sensors. We will now use technology to tell when a bridge is failing.
Now consider what that report is really saying. First, collapsing bridges have brought a black-eye to many politicians. They all want to look like they care and they're doing something. Hence, the sensors.
What the news implies is that serious funding to actually fix the bridges and save lives is probably not going to be forthcoming.
Why? Because Hillary's healthcare, war, fewer taxpayers, the rust belt mentality (out-sourcing) and feel-good welfare have strapped this country for actual wealth to make any dent in something worthwhile.
In Wisconsin, our lawmakers have just put together our state budget--we are the last state to have that chore completed. And frankly, it still has to pass a joint vote and the skilled scutiny of ace governor Jim "Getmywifeasandwich" Doyle. My guess is that this bill should successfully slip through all ten of his well-buttered thumbs in about two weeks.
Unless you guys start eating more cheese, it's clear we're out of real money.
This is a serious problem, and it's just started to manifest itself. You younger guys are going to be taxed to death.
The problem with the "I'm just using services I paid for with taxes" theory, is that most of the people using the services didn't pay jack #### for them. The sad reality is that the people who work and pay taxes pay for the people who don't work and don't pay taxes. And o lot of those people could work, except the libs have shown them how much easier it is to just not work and still get what they want. Why work and pay for health care when you can not work, and someone else will just pay for your health care.
I take 2 friends to the bar. I say to friend A "how would you like a free beer?" Of course he's gonna say yes. But then I say to friend B "pay for friend A's beer". He's gonna say "#### no".
But that is exactly the situation we have going on. People see others collecting without contributing and say to themselves "why should I work for these benefits when others sit around and still get them same benefits?" So they stop contributing and start collecting. But sooner or later, someone has to be paying for all of this "free" stuff. That's where the Dems/libs "let's tax the rich, they can afford to pay for the rest of us" plan comes into play. BUT, just like friend B at the bar not wanting to pay for someones else's beer, the rich say "#### no" and leave. Friend B leaves the bar, and the rich take their money, business, and jobs to other countries.
So after we've successfully turned everyone into collectors, and driven the few contributors elsewhere...who's paying for all this "free" stuff?
Here's an idea, you want a something like health care? Save up and pay for it. That way, the people who work and save get it, and the people who are lazy and "don't feel like seeking employment" screw only themselves. I don't go to work everyday just to pay for lazy people. Only my own self respect and values keep me working and contributing instead of taking the easy lazy route and collecting unemployment or government programs.
The libs claim to be "for the poor" and such. They're not. They want their votes. If they can make the nation dependent on the government, that same nation will keep putting that government in power to stay alive. Dems say "vote for us and we'll* pay for your food, housing, car, health care, abortions, birth control, etc" *Except "we" actually means "taxpayers". The Dems buy the votes of the dependent with the money of self-reliant conservative tax payers.
I take 2 friends to the bar. I say to friend A "how would you like a free beer?" Of course he's gonna say yes. But then I say to friend B "pay for friend A's beer". He's gonna say "#### no".
But that is exactly the situation we have going on. People see others collecting without contributing and say to themselves "why should I work for these benefits when others sit around and still get them same benefits?" So they stop contributing and start collecting. But sooner or later, someone has to be paying for all of this "free" stuff. That's where the Dems/libs "let's tax the rich, they can afford to pay for the rest of us" plan comes into play. BUT, just like friend B at the bar not wanting to pay for someones else's beer, the rich say "#### no" and leave. Friend B leaves the bar, and the rich take their money, business, and jobs to other countries.
So after we've successfully turned everyone into collectors, and driven the few contributors elsewhere...who's paying for all this "free" stuff?
Here's an idea, you want a something like health care? Save up and pay for it. That way, the people who work and save get it, and the people who are lazy and "don't feel like seeking employment" screw only themselves. I don't go to work everyday just to pay for lazy people. Only my own self respect and values keep me working and contributing instead of taking the easy lazy route and collecting unemployment or government programs.
The libs claim to be "for the poor" and such. They're not. They want their votes. If they can make the nation dependent on the government, that same nation will keep putting that government in power to stay alive. Dems say "vote for us and we'll* pay for your food, housing, car, health care, abortions, birth control, etc" *Except "we" actually means "taxpayers". The Dems buy the votes of the dependent with the money of self-reliant conservative tax payers.
Wanna prove that "most" bit?
In fact, does anyone want to supply any bit of data that details how many people on social services have contributed to those very programs?
Does anyone here know what it takes to get on welfare? Do y'all think you can just show up at a government office and ask for a check? Ever consider the possibility that many of those benefits go toward children that are not responsible for the mistakes of their parents?
So teaching them by example to keep making the same mistakes as their parents helps....how? How exactly are we supposed to wipe away the mistakes of their parents by teaching these new children it's OK to just rely on someone else to keep you alive and well? How about a little tough love and good old American spirit and show them how to pay and take care of themselves. I'm all for helping someone who is truly down. But the moment that person stops trying to help themselves and just sit back and relies on others, that person needs to be taught a harsh lesson. I'm not sure how, but there has to be a way to say "we'll give you 1 or 2 helping hands, but after that you're on your own" and actually mean it and stick with it. Unfortunately, todays Welfare State is "vote for us and we'll give you as many helping hands as you want, just keep voting for us".
Sooner or later, the ones actually paying for these endless "helping hands" are going to get tired of it.
And something will happen.
Sooner or later, the ones actually paying for these endless "helping hands" are going to get tired of it.
And something will happen.
JuanCarlos
New member
Wow, you're quick. That was my first question as well. There are plenty of people who pay little to no income taxes, but it's actually pretty difficult for anybody who is employed to get out of paying into Social Security, Medicare, and (indirectly, since we have nitpickers about) unemployment insurance.
I don't see the "think of the children" argument going over well here.
But the other point is certainly a good one; I think many people have a distorted view of just how easy it is to get government handouts...especially to do so legally. Sure, G-Cym's outstanding work ethic keep him in a job and off of unemployment. But the fact that pulling unemployment requires actually seeking work, accepting suitable work offered, and generally carries time limits and a boatload of restrictions (if you want to draw it legally) would probably push him in the direction of a job regardless. In most states, drawing welfare (and many other government handouts) comes with a work requirement, and/or time limits.
Then of course there was his "you should just save up for your own health care" argument. A valid one, depending on your economic leanings...except that applying that attitude to people drawing Medicare today neglects the fact that those people would have had a much easier time doing so had they not had money taken out of every paycheck for most/all of their working lives to pay for the Medicare and Social Security programs. Oh, but I forgot..."most" of them didn't pay anything in. Sure. Right.
