10 myths

[BishopMVP]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/myths_john_stossel_040123-1.html

Apparently this was on 20/20 last night. Not sure if he's supposed to 'reveal' #1 tonight or if he has already done so, but some of the things are interesting.

[sabotai]

Myth #7 is definatly wrong. Money would definatly buy me happiness. :)

The rest seem to be generally correct.

[Maple Leafs]

It was on last night. Myth #1 was that things are worse now than they used to be. Went on to show several reasons why virtually everything -- crime, pollution, work, income, etc -- is better now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Mostly a summary of Myths 10 thru 2.

[miami_fan]

That was hilarious :D

[Senator]

No Myths already set the bar for this kind of thing.

[BishopMVP]

Myth #7 is definatly wrong. Money would definatly buy me happiness. :)

The rest seem to be generally correct.
You'd think so, but everything I've read indicates that increased choices don't make people happier and if anything, make people less unhappy becuase they are always comparing what they did to what they could have been doing. TMQ (and others) have recently put out books on this.

[miami_fan]

You'd think so, but everything I've read indicates that increased choices don't make people happier and if anything, make people less unhappy becuase they are always comparing what they did to what they could have been doing. TMQ (and others) have recently put out books on this.


Give me more money and I will give you a definitive answer :D

[kcchief19]

This is a pretty accurate example of why I believe John Stossel is among the worst and most overrated reporters working in network news today. He is infamous for presenting one side of the story and leaving out anything that refutes his point. Read the story -- finde one mention of anyone refuting what he says.

For instance, he says that attributes excesses in consumer shopping to choice, not need, and mentions that homes have more than double in square footage in the last 50 years. That has little to do with consumer choice and more than local governments use exclusionary zoning to promote larger homes that generate more income in property taxes and attracts more affluent homeowners who will pay more sales and income taxes. If John wanted, there is a great story in how Americans are being told by local governments that we want you to come flip our burgers and bag our groceries, but we'd prefer you live 30 minutes away because we don't want your kind hanging around.

Can money buy hapiness? I don't know, but I'm a hell of a lot happier now than when I was making $15,000 a year, and I'd be a hell of a lot happier if I were making any more. What John has missed is perspective. If Russell Simmons and his millionaire friends are unhappy, what are they unhappy about? Is he unhappy that Donald Trump bought the penthouse that we was looking at? Or is he unhappy because the kids at school made fun of his kid because he doesn't have enough money to buy him new jeans? I'll agree that money won't solve your love life or let you play catch with your dead father, so in that sense money can't buy happiness. But since research indicates that the primary problem facing the typical American family is money, it seems that having more of it would make you better off than most, and if doesn't then that's because you're freakin' asshole.

I also always like the argument about how the top 1 percent pays 34 percent of the income taxes, and that's not "fair." But the top 1 percent control 40 percent of the wealth, so in that sense, the rich actually pay less than their fair share. I'm not arguing which approach is right -- I actually think both formulas are flawed -- but it shows once again John just wanted to get on his soapbox and prove his point, facts be damned.

OK, now I'll get off MY soapbox.

[miami_fan]

Seriously I also do not believe that money in and of itself will make buy you happiness. I think the perspective of this is very important but I know at least in my neck of the woods, I am considered "happier" than many friends that make more money.

[chinaski]

I dont get #5. It makes no sense at all.


But let's remember the facts: the top 1 percent of Americans — those who earn more than about $300,000 a year — pay 34 percent, more than a third of all income taxes, and the top 5 percent, those making over $125,000, pay more than half.


So what? That has nothing to do with the TAX RATE of these people. Im sure what they pay is 34% of the total tax collected in america, but it doesnt mean they are paying 34% of their wealth in taxes.

All i know, the more money ive made over the years, the less federal income tax ive had to pay. It aint right.

[Draft Dodger]

#11) Calling a timeout before a field goal attempt "ices" the kicker.

[sabotai]

Federal tax rates: http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html

[BishopMVP]

This is a pretty accurate example of why I believe John Stossel is among the worst and most overrated reporters working in network news today. He is infamous for presenting one side of the story and leaving out anything that refutes his point. Read the story -- finde one mention of anyone refuting what he says.The reason he doesn't have people refuting him is that he is trying to disprove myths - generally accepted truths. He also has a book that probably goes into much more detail.

For instance, he says that attributes excesses in consumer shopping to choice, not need, and mentions that homes have more than double in square footage in the last 50 years. That has little to do with consumer choice and more than local governments use exclusionary zoning to promote larger homes that generate more income in property taxes and attracts more affluent homeowners who will pay more sales and income taxes. If John wanted, there is a great story in how Americans are being told by local governments that we want you to come flip our burgers and bag our groceries, but we'd prefer you live 30 minutes away because we don't want your kind hanging around.Who exactly are the people behind that 'don't want your kind hanging around' insinuation? It is not Spanish Dons, it is other Americans. The argument that there is income inequality has been presented quite a few times, and it was even 1/3 of my Sociology class this fall, but as long as all Americans lives are being improved, it doesn't matter too much to me, and besides that, it is not the point of this part of the article.

Can money buy hapiness? I don't know, but I'm a hell of a lot happier now than when I was making $15,000 a year, and I'd be a hell of a lot happier if I were making any more.He presents 2 cut-off's of $30,000 and $50,000 respectively.

What John has missed is perspective. If Russell Simmons and his millionaire friends are unhappy, what are they unhappy about? Is he unhappy that Donald Trump bought the penthouse that we was looking at? Or is he unhappy because the kids at school made fun of his kid because he doesn't have enough money to buy him new jeans?You are also guilty of a lack of perspective. How would someone who is in real poverty and doesn't have the ability to put food on the table will look at the fact you are complaining because you can't buy newer clothes? Probably the same as someone complaining they couldn't get the penthouse apartment they wanted.

I'll agree that money won't solve your love life or let you play catch with your dead father, so in that sense money can't buy happiness. But since research indicates that the primary problem facing the typical American family is money, it seems that having more of it would make you better off than most, and if doesn't then that's because you're freakin' asshole.I believe any research you show will prove that most Americans believe the problem preventing them from being happy is more money, but whether or not this is actually the case is debatable. And I believe the word you are looking for is ungrateful, not freakin' asshole.

I also always like the argument about how the top 1 percent pays 34 percent of the income taxes, and that's not "fair." But the top 1 percent control 40 percent of the wealth, so in that sense, the rich actually pay less than their fair share. I'm not arguing which approach is right -- I actually think both formulas are flawed -- but it shows once again John just wanted to get on his soapbox and prove his point, facts be damned.Here is the article on it Myth No. 5 — The Rich Don't Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes
We've all heard this one during the presidential campaign. When it comes to income taxes, the Democratic presidential candidates keep telling us, the rich don't pay enough.

That's a widespread belief, but do the politicians even know how much of the income tax burden the rich pay now?


According to presidential candidate Al Sharpton, "The top one percent in this country pays very much less than ten percent, very much less than five percent."

Sharpton said he thinks the wealthy should pay "somewhere around 15 percent."

But that's so silly because — and I bet most of you don't know this — the IRS says the richest 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 34 percent of all income taxes. Twice what Sharpton wanted them to pay.

Still you may feel the rich should pay even more. It's a tempting thought, since they have so much. But let's remember the facts: the top 1 percent of Americans — those who earn more than about $300,000 a year — pay 34 percent, more than a third of all income taxes, and the top 5 percent, those making over $125,000, pay more than half.There are 2 points here you could get from reading that passage. The overt intent is that most politicians (and thus people in general) underestimate how much rich people pay. You could also read it to mean he's arguing that rich people already do pay enough in taxes. Both arguments are probably valid.

[Primal]

I dont get #5. It makes no sense at all.



So what? That has nothing to do with the TAX RATE of these people. Im sure what they pay is 34% of the total tax collected in america, but it doesnt mean they are paying 34% of their wealth in taxes.

All i know, the more money ive made over the years, the less federal income tax ive had to pay. It aint right.
So you'd rather punish people for being productive and making money? That’s a good lesson to teach our children. Work hard and you can be poor like everyone else.

There is a little island south of Florida that has that same mentality. If you don't like capitalize go to a socialist state.

Edit: Damn HTML editor

[NoMyths]

Doomed!

[sabotai]

BRILLIANT!

[illinifan999]

There ain't no we in team eitha


Money can give me happiness. When I didn't have any money, I was sad. Now that I have money, I am happy.

[Fonzie]

Money may not buy happiness, but it'll go a long way toward buying a new liver.

[BishopMVP]

So you'd rather punish people for being productive and making money? That’s a good lesson to teach our children. Work hard and you can be poor like everyone else.

There is a little island south of Florida that has that same mentality. If you don't like capitalize go to a socialist state.
Considering the top tax bracket for individuals is 35% in this country, there is plenty of room to increase that before our Capitalist economy turns into a Socialist one.

[Draft Dodger]

interesting that he talked to Russell Simmons.

anyone see his house on MTV Cribs? Easily the most gorgeous house I've seen on that show. By a mile, really. Not only lavish and extravagent - but tastefully done as well.

[chinaski]

So you'd rather punish people for being productive and making money? That’s a good lesson to teach our children. Work hard and you can be poor like everyone else.

There is a little island south of Florida that has that same mentality. If you don't like capitalize go to a socialist state.

Edit: Damn HTML editor

i dont feel sorry for anyone who makes over 311k a year. Take away 35% of that and it hardly qualifies someone as poor. What bothers me the most is when income tax is cut for the wealthy, its shifted too lower income folks.

which leads me too...

thats only EARNED income tax! the wealthiest 5% could careless about it. The real money is in UNEARNED income and dividends. Once you add up UNEARNED and EARNED, the total tax paid is nowhere remotely near 35%. Its more like 5%.

Thats whats truely disgusting.

The average american doesnt get any relief like this, simply because - theyre average.

[Primal]

Considering the top tax bracket for individuals is 35% in this country, there is plenty of room to increase that before our Capitalist economy turns into a Socialist one.
35% + 9.5% (California) = 44.5%

So you work almost to July for the Government before a dime goes in your pocket. You don't think that’s bad?

When did government taxation become so acceptable?

[Primal]

i dont feel sorry for anyone who makes over 311k a year. Take away 35% of that and it hardly qualifies someone as poor. What bothers me the most is when income tax is cut for the wealthy, its shifted too lower income folks.


I think the best method would be to move toward an consumption tax. That way there is no Rich vs. Poor. Everything would be equal (as far as taxes are concerned).

[Dutch]

Myth No. 6 — Republicans Shrink the Government

Republicans always trot out the slogan that they oppose big government and want to shrink the federal payroll. President Bush tells us that "big government is not the answer." President Reagan told us, "Our government is too big and it spends too much."

But for more than 75 years, no Republican administration has cut the size of government. Since George W. Bush became president, government spending has risen nearly 25 percent.

And the spending increase isn't just tied to the war on terrorism. The Office of Management and Budget says spending at the Environmental Protection Agency is up 12 percent, it's up 14 percent at the Agriculture Department, 30 percent at the Department of the Interior, 64 percent at the Department of Labor, and 70 percent at the Department of Education.

And let's not forget about #6 on the list. The Democrats are screaming bloody murder that we aren't spending enough on Environment, Labor, and Education social services. The Republicans are bad at Big Government? I guess, with all the rhetoric being thrown around in Iowa and NH, we ain't seen nothing yet!

[Primal]

The real money is in UNEARNED income and dividends.
I'd love to know where the untaxed dividends are.

[BishopMVP]

35% + 9.5% (California) = 44.5%

So you work almost to July for the Government before a dime goes in your pocket. You don't think that’s bad?

When did government taxation become so acceptable?
I was only pointing out that you were exaggerating your point. Also, like someone else said, the 35% bracket is only on income earned above $311,000, so my anger is tempered by that.

[BishopMVP]

And let's not forget about #6 on the list. The Democrats are screaming bloody murder that we aren't spending enough on Environment, Labor, and Education social services. The Republicans are bad at Big Government? I guess, with all the rhetoric being thrown around in Iowa and NH, we ain't seen nothing yet!
The myth is that Republicans shrink government. They don't, and even though the Democrats are almost certainly worse on this, it doesn't make the point any less true. An example on the other side would be that Democrats are good on Civil Liberties. Janet Reno was worse than John Ashcroft at infinging on people's rights, but that doesn't get mentioned much in the hoopla surrounding the Patriot Act.

[Desnudo]

If I remember correctly the highest tax bracket around World War II was 90%. So it's happened in past where the brackets diverged greatly. What's interesting is that there were nearly 0% of the people actually in that bracket. Higher taxes provide a disincentive to earn money after a certain point. In case anyone was curious, there was no income tax at all prior to the Civil War.

I don't like the idea of diverging tax rates because of the implication that the government is trying to force "equality of outcome" instead of "equality of opportunity." I think it gets away from the spirit this country was founded on. I would much prefer to see Milton Friedman's idea of taxation based on usuage and impact.

Emotion and rhetoric shouldn't play a part in discussing tax plans but unfortunately that's all that seems to impact tax law.

[Primal]

I don't like the idea of diverging tax rates because of the implication that the government is trying to force "equality of outcome" instead of "equality of opportunity." I think it gets away from the spirit this country was founded on. I would much prefer to see Milton Friedman's idea of taxation based on usuage and impact.
Well said.

[JonInMiddleGA]

there is a great story in how Americans are being told by local governments that we want you to come flip our burgers and bag our groceries, but we'd prefer you live 30 minutes away because we don't want your kind hanging around.

Then I wish to hell & back my local government would listen to that message, because I've been trying to get that very point across to them for years.

This is essentially a bedroom community and the very last thing on earth I want is to have my property tax rate increased yet again in order to pay for infrastructure and service cost of people who contribute diddly squat relative to their cost.

We already have an ample supply of undereducated, undermotivated, and underskilled workers, to fill the small demand for burger flipping and grocery bagging, so please -- no more here, let somebody carry the f'n dead weight for a while, my back is tired.

And that's my little rant.

[sabotai]

thats only EARNED income tax! the wealthiest 5% could careless about it. The real money is in UNEARNED income and dividends. Once you add up UNEARNED and EARNED, the total tax paid is nowhere remotely near 35%. Its more like 5%.
And you wouldn't have any information or research to back up this claim, would you?

[Fritz]

I think most rational people already knew #3.

[Tigercat]

The one simple simple thing that isn't mentioned when partisian debates on taxes occur is that the rich would not be rich, in terms of legal tender, if not for the government. That is the simple reason why I agree with the point made above:
If one group of people, say the upper 1%, control a certain amount of the money, say 40%, they should indeed account for that amount of that tax burden. It seems quite fair and simple to me, and because we are talking percentages of wealth nation-wide and percentages of federal taxes paid from an income bracket, state and local taxes don't factor in. So if it is indeed true that the top 1% control 40% of the wealth and only pay 34% in taxes, it seems pretty obvious to me who should get a tax raise.

[yabanci]

actually, the top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95% percent.

[Desnudo]

The one simple simple thing that isn't mentioned when partisian debates on taxes occur is that the rich would not be rich, in terms of legal tender, if not for the government. That is the simple reason why I agree with the point made above:
If one group of people, say the upper 1%, control a certain amount of the money, say 40%, they should indeed account for that amount of that tax burden. It seems quite fair and simple to me, and because we are talking percentages of wealth nation-wide and percentages of federal taxes paid from an income bracket, state and local taxes don't factor in. So if it is indeed true that the top 1% control 40% of the wealth and only pay 34% in taxes, it seems pretty obvious to me who should get a tax raise.

If it was 40% of the total national income, then fine, but if we are talking about total held wealth, it's not right to compare solely against federal income taxes. That's 34% income tax. It's an apples and oranges comparison. If you factor in capital gains, estate taxes, property taxes, sales tax, luxury tax, etc.., I'd bet the amount comes out more evenly.

[Fritz]

actually, the top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95% percent.

Funny though, color TVs and designer sneakers are much more even in ditribution. I bet the top 1% owns hardly more than 5% of the cell phones and play stations.

[CamEdwards]

I dont get #5. It makes no sense at all.



So what? That has nothing to do with the TAX RATE of these people. Im sure what they pay is 34% of the total tax collected in america, but it doesnt mean they are paying 34% of their wealth in taxes.

All i know, the more money ive made over the years, the less federal income tax ive had to pay. It aint right.

Wish it worked that way for me. Two years ago I started making decent money and I also started having to pay more taxes, rather than getting a refund.

[Bubba Wheels]

Money may not buy happiness, but it does buy a certain amount of security. Big-name celebrities get away with murder and other crimes by hiring big-shot lawyers that game the legal system. Lesser folk would be put away for long-term sentences or life for similar offenses. I am reminded by the speech the late, great Richard Harris gives at the end of "The Molly McGuires": "The law is bought, like you would buy a loaf of bread." Maybe not always in the extreme, but almost always with some amount of degree.

[BishopMVP]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Bubba Wheels]

This is not just in the area of courtrooms and lawyers. High-income suburbs have much lower crime rates than low-income urban areas do, this is undisputable. Then again, this may all be by design, as incentive to work hard, get ahead, and get your kids into a much safer enviroment with better schools? One principle I remember from a long-ago psycology class was that pain was actually an incentive for personal change and improvement. Then again, maybe it is all relative.

[Glengoyne]

All i know, the more money ive made over the years, the less federal income tax ive had to pay. It aint right.
What country do you live in?

[Glengoyne]

dola,
Considering the top tax bracket for individuals is 35% in this country, there is plenty of room to increase that before our Capitalist economy turns into a Socialist one.Pretty sure the top tax bracket is over 40%. Not that people in that bracket pay more than 40% of their income, but the income within in that top bracket is taxed at a forty something percent.



thats only EARNED income tax! the wealthiest 5% could careless about it. The real money is in UNEARNED income and dividends. Once you add up UNEARNED and EARNED, the total tax paid is nowhere remotely near 35%. Its more like 5%. Only if you are using the same calculator as Al Sharpton. Seriously though, If you have something credible to back this up, I'd like to see it.


If I remember correctly the highest tax bracket around World War II was 90%. So it's happened in past where the brackets diverged greatly. What's interesting is that there were nearly 0% of the people actually in that bracket. Higher taxes provide a disincentive to earn money after a certain point. In case anyone was curious, there was no income tax at all prior to the Civil War.
The highest tax bracket was over 90% during WW2. It stayed close to that until 1982(maybe '81) when President Reagan lowered it to thirty something. Regarding the no income tax thought. I don't think there was an actual federal income tax until circa World War I. 1930 seems like the year, but I can't remember for certain.(Next stop Google I guess)

[Bubba Wheels]

The Federal Income Tax has been said to be unconstitutional. Even though congress enacted the tax, as I understand it they made no penalty provision for not paying and hence, technically, it is not binding. Rob Lowe even makes mention of this during a West Wing episode (not actually considered a far-right show).

[sabotai]

I know it was earlier than 1930 that an icome tax was started. I have a few old income tax receipts from a LONG time ago from ancesters of mine (How much did they pay in income tax? One was for $1, the second was for $2). I'm pretty sure the receipt said federal....I'll have to check.

[sabotai]

Bah. They're not where I last saw them. My parents must have put them away or something.

[Glengoyne]

I know it was earlier than 1930 that an icome tax was started. I have a few old income tax receipts from a LONG time ago from ancesters of mine (How much did they pay in income tax? One was for $1, the second was for $2). I'm pretty sure the receipt said federal....I'll have to check.Just back from Google, and it looks like the 1913 year was correct. In 1932 the system changed and is the first income tax that resembles what we have today. The revenue act of 1932 it was called. The 1913 version had such high deductions that almost everyone was exempt.

Edit: hehe I just noticed that I removed my reference to 1913 in the original post. See if I ever second guess myself again.

[Fritz]

this is an incredibly clueless post.

thats only EARNED income tax! the wealthiest 5% could careless about it. The real money is in UNEARNED income and dividends. Once you add up UNEARNED and EARNED, the total tax paid is nowhere remotely near 35%. Its more like 5%.

[BishopMVP]

This is not just in the area of courtrooms and lawyers. High-income suburbs have much lower crime rates than low-income urban areas do, this is undisputable. Then again, this may all be by design, as incentive to work hard, get ahead, and get your kids into a much safer enviroment with better schools? One principle I remember from a long-ago psycology class was that pain was actually an incentive for personal change and improvement.
I just fail to see what this or your original post had to do with people's happiness. If the knowledge that you could kill your wife and have a better chance than someone else of avoiding prison time makes you happy, that's great, but I don't think that's a large factor for most people.

Then again, maybe it is all relative.
Bingo. Once you reach a certain point, it comes down to what you yourself think of the situation. If you are someone in the middle class of this country, or even much of the lower-class, you can complain that you can't afford that bigger TV or you could realize that you're living in conditions superior to those of the Kings of Europe from 500 years ago.

[BishopMVP]

Pretty sure the top tax bracket is over 40%. Not that people in that bracket pay more than 40% of their income, but the income within in that top bracket is taxed at a forty something percent.Just going off the link provided earlier in the thread - http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html - the highest federal bracket is 35%. I don't know how accurate it is, and in most places, once you add on state and local taxes, that probably goes up over 40% anyway.

EDIT - I figured as long as we're on the topic of how much the wealthy pay in taxes, I would link to the thread on taxes in general/supply-side tax cuts from a couple months ago. http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=16209&highlight=reagonomics

[BishopMVP]

The Federal Income Tax has been said to be unconstitutional. Even though congress enacted the tax, as I understand it they made no penalty provision for not paying and hence, technically, it is not binding. Rob Lowe even makes mention of this during a West Wing episode (not actually considered a far-right show).
Um, no. http://www.unclefed.com/Tax-News/2001/nr01-73.html

I wouldn't trust the West Wing to be my Constitutional Authority.

[oykib]

I think a lot of you are missing the point. The reason that we have a progressive tax structure is because there is a certain basic level at which if money is taken from you it makes you choose between necessities rather than luxuries. We can debate where that line is. But it's somewhere.

The notion is that we can tax income beyond a cretain level at a higher rate because if we do it will not have an impact on anyone's happiness or well-being. There is likely to be no significant detrimental impact on a family of five if they moved from $500,000 to $400,000 in total annual household income. However a family of five that goes from $50,000 to $40,000 is going to have to decide which goods and services that we take for granted is most important and learn to do without the rest.

Now, many of the people that support our current tax system do so because of envy and laziness. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's there for legitimate reasons.

Also, The article seems to only mention income tax. That's bullshit evidence. Poor and middle class people pay as much or more in payroll taxes. When the income tax rate is cut, it has almost no impact on an average American's life. However, the rate drop has almost it's full point effect on the wealthy.

that is not even mentioning that the biggest taxation scofflaws are corporations and the wealthy. They can afford tax attorneys and they basically write the tax legislation, anyway. There's a reason rich guys don't fill out the EZ form. There's also a reason that poor people can't.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... because if we do it will not have an impact on anyone's happiness or well-being.

Trust me, it has a majorimpact on my happiness.

[BishopMVP]

The notion is that we can tax income beyond a cretain level at a higher rate because if we do it will not have an impact on anyone's happiness or well-being.
It does have some effect. How much is up for debate, but if you take it to the extreme and tax all earned income over $1,000,000 at 100%, almost no one would bother to earn more than that.

There is likely to be no significant detrimental impact on a family of five if they moved from $500,000 to $400,000 in total annual household income. However a family of five that goes from $50,000 to $40,000 is going to have to decide which goods and services that we take for granted is most important and learn to do without the rest.

Now, many of the people that support our current tax system do so because of envy and laziness. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's there for legitimate reasons.

Also, The article seems to only mention income tax. That's bullshit evidence. Poor and middle class people pay as much or more in payroll taxes. When the income tax rate is cut, it has almost no impact on an average American's life. However, the rate drop has almost it's full point effect on the wealthy.

that is not even mentioning that the biggest taxation scofflaws are corporations and the wealthy. They can afford tax attorneys and they basically write the tax legislation, anyway. There's a reason rich guys don't fill out the EZ form. There's also a reason that poor people can't.
If you read the thread I linked to in my last post, you'll see many of these issues argued there in greater detail towards the end. You might want to bump that and continue the argument so we don't go over much of the same ground.

[oykib]

I see what you are talking about guys. But we are not talking about a 100% or even 50% tax rate. We are talking about mild increases as we go up the ladder. I doubt that anyone in America turns up their nose at opportunities to make an extra mil because of tax reasons.

It could go to far. But it hasn't yet. Of course if I'm the 500k guy i'm annoyed to lose the 100k. But if you're the 50k guy and lose 10k, then you can't take your kids to the doctor when they are sick. I suppose it all depends on what you consider a basic human right. I think that it's in a wealthy nation's interest to see that it's entire population is decently fed, housed, educated, protected from crime, and medically treated. If you deny people those things, you wind up with the nihilistic miscreants that ain't-got-shit-to-lose. That element winds up costing the society a lot more than providing those things to start.

[BishopMVP]

I see what you are talking about guys. But we are not talking about a 100% or even 50% tax rate. We are talking about mild increases as we go up the ladder. I doubt that anyone in America turns up their nose at opportunities to make an extra mil because of tax reasons.
I don't disagree with this.

It could go to far. But it hasn't yet.
It probably did go too far before Reagan came along and reduced it. I think the top tax bracket was around 90%.

Of course if I'm the 500k guy i'm annoyed to lose the 100k. But if you're the 50k guy and lose 10k, then you can't take your kids to the doctor when they are sick. I suppose it all depends on what you consider a basic human right. I think that it's in a wealthy nation's interest to see that it's entire population is decently fed, housed, educated, protected from crime, and medically treated. If you deny people those things, you wind up with the nihilistic miscreants that ain't-got-shit-to-lose. That element winds up costing the society a lot more than providing those things to start.
I agree with this, but its the implementation that is hard. If there were a system that could guarantee national health care for a price that was reasonable, I would be all for it. There is a spectrum from people who say that almost any amount is worth paying to give health care to everyone to people who would refuse any system that cost them a dime out of their pocket. The trick is finding the balance.

And you always are going to have nihilistic miscreants - this is off on a tangent, but look at Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri and most of the upper leadership for Al-Qaeda. They were all very wealthy people. There are also people who wouldn't steal a loaf of bread to feed themselves if they were starving. So if you can't eliminate all, and there is no point where everyone will turn into a danger to society, then it's a matter of finding the balancing point in the cost-benefits relationship.

Overall, I think we're both on the same track here.

[Samdari]

Can money buy hapiness? I don't know, but I'm a hell of a lot happier now than when I was making $15,000 a year, and I'd be a hell of a lot happier if I were making any more.

I also seriously refute the idea that money and happiness are unrelated. My wife and I are infinitely happier owning our own home than we were renting. I've owned it for two and a half years now and still get a twinge of pride and happiness every day when I come home from work just by looking at it before I go and and knowing its mine. This would not have been possible without money.

Also, I just got back from a weekend visiting my younger brother in California. It cost my wife and I about $1000 all told. He is just starting out and cannot afford to fly anywhere, so if I did not have an excess of disposable income, I'd never see him, and seeing him made me very happy.

The common thread between those things: they required money.

I would agree that possessing or hoarding large amounts of money will not equate to happiness. However, the idea that having it cannot lead to happiness is ludicrous. Can money not be exchanged for goods and services that make us happy according to our needs/wants/tastes etc.?

[Bubba Wheels]

Lol, trust me West Wing is NOT my constitutional authority. The point was just to illustrate the fact: Even a fictional TV show with the Liberal bias of a West Wing acknowledges the fact that the very Federal Income Tax itself my indeed be totally Unconstitutional because it lacks the penalty for not paying. This would mean that the Federal Courts totally lack constitutional authority to enforce the Federal Income Tax (you can find sources for this on many sites, try a Google search), but of course that does NOT stop these very same courts from sending people to jail for not paying. So what does that say about our Federal and Constitutional system as a whole? To me it says that the constitution itself is just an illusionary device for control of the populance and that authorities charged with protecting and defending that document really just pick and choose what they will and will not enforce based on their own gain and convenience. (It may also be this very issue about taxes that got Lyndon LaRouche jailed, not sure...)

[BishopMVP]

Can money not be exchanged for goods and services that make us happy according to our needs/wants/tastes etc.?
It depends on what makes you happy. I'm not saying that money can't get you things that make you happier, but the belief that if you won the lottery and had millions of dollars tomorrow your life would be perfect is equally ludicrous. Happiness itself is a very vague concept, and if you want to start a discussion on that in addition to the one on monetary policy I'd welcome it.

[BishopMVP]

The point was just to illustrate the fact: Even a fictional TV show with the Liberal bias of a West Wing acknowledges the fact that the very Federal Income Tax itself my indeed be totally Unconstitutional because it lacks the penalty for not paying.
It doesn't 'acknowledge the fact' because it is simply not true. If it were you'd hear a lot more about this. There is also the supposed Ohio loophole, where they never ratified the 16th amendment, so if you live and work in that state you don't have to pay taxes either. All of these things are scams.

This would mean that the Federal Courts totally lack constitutional authority to enforce the Federal Income Tax (you can find sources for this on many sites, try a Google search), but of course that does NOT stop these very same courts from sending people to jail for not paying. So what does that say about our Federal and Constitutional system as a whole? To me it says that the constitution itself is just an illusionary device for control of the populance and that authorities charged with protecting and defending that document really just pick and choose what they will and will not enforce based on their own gain and convenience. (It may also be this very issue about taxes that got Lyndon LaRouche jailed, not sure...)
:cues the Twilight Zone theme:

Just off the top of my head, if you look at Al Capone and other Mafia people, when the Government couldn't get them on criminal charges, they sent them to jail for tax evasion. If they really were just selectively using the Constitution they could have sent them to jail for the criminal charges and not used an elabarote supposed charade. Conspiracy theories are fun to read, but the vast majority just aren't true, and this falls under that category.

[Samdari]

It depends on what makes you happy. I'm not saying that money can't get you things that make you happier, but the belief that if you won the lottery and had millions of dollars tomorrow your life would be perfect is equally ludicrous. Happiness itself is a very vague concept, and if you want to start a discussion on that in addition to the one on monetary policy I'd welcome it.

I make a consciouss effort to avoid political discussions here, so I have no interest in the monetary policy discussion. One thought that occurred to me while reading the original article was that there was going to be a wild thread about it. Many concepts to discuss.

I do agree with the idea that HAVING money won't make most people happy. I do think that it can be exchanged for things that will.

[oykib]

Technically, I would have to call myself a liberal. But like many of Bishop's (and even a couple of Jon's points ;)), I find myself agreeing with conservatives. I imagine that is the case with all reasonable people. It's a shame that even in an election year we can't get discussion like this between our would-be leaders.

[BishopMVP]

What if the most important thing for someone is love? Will money really solve that problem?

[rkmsuf]

What if the most important thing for someone is love? Will money really solve that problem?

If you love money you are all set...

[BishopMVP]

Technically, I would have to call myself a liberal. But like many of Bishop's (and even a couple of Jon's points ;)), I find myself agreeing with conservatives. I imagine that is the case with all reasonable people. It's a shame that even in an election year we can't get discussion like this between our would-be leaders.
The odd thing is that I'm really not a conservative. The only thing I could tell you for certain regarding my ideology is that I'm a hawk. Beyond that, I just think most of the politicians and political ideas aren't very smart....I just see more liberal ones growing up and living where I do, so I tend to point those out more.

Sorry if it seems like I'm calling you out at all, but I always find it interesting when I read Easy Mac's posts regarding politics, because it seems like (excepting Iraq) he and I are fairly similar, but I live in a liberal area and he lives in a conservative one, and so both of us get defined ideologically more by those surrounding us than any actual beliefs.

[Fritz]

I think that it's in a wealthy nation's interest to see that it's entire population is decently fed, housed, educated, protected from crime, and medically treated. If you deny people those things, you wind up with the nihilistic miscreants that ain't-got-shit-to-lose. That element winds up costing the society a lot more than providing those things to start.


Bullshit.

That is a weak buy-out philosophy that absolves an individual for taking responsibility for their own life.

[oykib]

Bullshit.

That is a weak buy-out philosophy that absolves an individual for taking responsibility for their own life.

I'm not absolving anyone of wrongdoing. I'm saying if people are in a certain situation, a certain percentage of them tend to do some unsavory things. Many of these same people wouldn't if they felt they had something to lose.

[wig]

I heart Fritz.

You can be my running mate anytime.

:)

wig

[BishopMVP]

Bullshit.

That is a weak buy-out philosophy that absolves an individual for taking responsibility for their own life.I agree with you that often people who claim that we should undertake these huge programs don't account enough for the responsibility of the individual, but just because someone will choose to do something bad if they are put in a certain situation doesn't mean you shouldn't try to help prevent it from happening, especially if their actions could affect you.

[Fritz]

I'm not absolving anyone of wrongdoing. I'm saying if people are in a certain situation, a certain percentage of them tend to do some unsavory things. Many of these same people wouldn't if they felt they had something to lose.


If you tell people that you will make up for what they do not earn on their own, then you remove all incentive for them to have personal responsibility.

We are not in a country where anything is lacking. The best food, medical care, and luxury is out there to be had. Someone has to pay for it, and it ought to be the person that consumes it.

[QuikSand]

We are not in a country where anything is lacking. The best food, medical care, and luxury is out there to be had. Someone has to pay for it, and it ought to be the person that consumes it.

::children's music plays::
One of these things is not like the others,
One of the things just does not belong...

[oykib]

If you tell people that you will make up for what they do not, then you remove all incentive for them to have personal responsibility.

We are not in a country where anything is lacking. The best food, medical care, and luxury is out there to be had. Someone has to pay for it, and it ought to be the person that consumes it.

That's true. But it's also true that if someone needs money for medicine in order to live, they might just kill you to get. That's why we should all endeavor to pitch in to the less fortunate (other than the fact that it's the right thing to do).

[Fritz]

::children's music plays::
One of these things is not like the others,
One of the things just does not belong...

you are clearly kind to me.

I include luxury, because it is my strong feeling that the American version of the welfare state seeks to give eveyone a middle-class lifestyle.

[wig]

Why work for lower middle-class income when you can just have it handed to you by the state?

Why work to afford health care if you can have someone else pay for it?

These are the questions that pop into my mind when I read debates like this.

[Fritz]

That's true. But it's also true that if someone needs money for medicine in order to live, they might just kill you to get. That's why we should all endeavor to pitch in to the less fortunate (other than the fact that it's the right thing to do).

that is social blackmail.

On top of that, it is not the right thing to do. The less fortunate should endeavor to pitch in and feed themselves.

[albionmoonlight]

It is a little personal to me, let me disclose that first. I come from a family where you had to work for what you got--my parents have not given me a nickel for my education, and I have managed to make it all the way through law school with a combination of loans and earned scholarships. I am proud of that. My dad is a welder because he is good with his hands and because he was not able to graduate from a normal high school (it is clear--to me at least--that he has several undiagnoised learning disabilities, but he didn't cry ADD or "gimmie, gimmie, I need" He went out and got a job doing something that he was good at.) My mom is a secretary. She did not have the opportunity to go to college because her father died when she was in 6th grade and by the time my Mom got out of high school, money at home was very tight and her family needed her to work to contribute money to the family.

My grandmother on my Mom's side has very little money because she had to raise five kids by herself on her single income after her husband died (see above). She was a working mom before it was cool. She took no government assistance of any type. She simply worked hard and provided for her family.

Since 1990, my grandmother has lived with my parents (lived off my parents to the extent that her expenses go beyond social security). My parents took her in because that is simply what families do for each other. My parents, as you might expect, living off of blue collar incomes and having taken care of an elderly woman for the last 15 years and just being generous people in general, have not saved much money at all. The money they would have horded for themselves instead went to help and nurture their family (all generations of it).

I would not trade this for the world. Living in that family taught me the value of hard work and taught me to care for those who care for me. Based on that example, I expect to take care of my parents in their old age. I would not have it any other way.

Say, however, that my sister and I pass away in an accident soon. My parents will, when they reach retirement age, have nothing financial to live on except what society provides for them.

I would like to be very clear on this point. Those of you taking the right wing position on this issue--do you say that it is a better system that will leave my parents (who, in case you missed it have been working and paying taxes since age 18) literally starving to death on the streets and dying of easily curable diseases because--by allowing them to die, America will teach others in the future to horde their money for old age, and that such an America is better than the one we have today? That is what it sounds like you are saying to me. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

Draconian, "this 'el learn 'em" style social ideas sound good in the abstract. However, the necessary result--forcing people to suffer in order to teach others to be more peronally greedy to avoid future suffering--always seems to turn my stomach.

There is no law saying that you have to be compassionate and show mercy toward others (no earthly law anyway). It just seems like a good idea sometimes.

[cuervo72]

I find it humorous that in the middle of this article is an AOL ad promising NFL scores faster, because "Life needs to kick it up". Yep. It needs it all right.

[Fritz]

savings and greed are the same now?

I missed the Aesop fable about the greedy ant and the poor grasshopper uprising.

[albionmoonlight]

savings and greed are the same now?
Your [parent, neighbor, friend, sibling, child, complete stranger] needs financial assistance. You choose not to provide it to them because you would rather keep the money for yourself. I call that greed. Others may not. It's not the same thing as putting money in the bank instead of going on vacation (that, in my view, is savings).

[albionmoonlight]

And you have not answered my question. Should we let the current crop of poor retirees starve to death in order to teach the current generation to save properly?

[Fritz]

Did the current crop of retirees not have an opportunity to plan for post retirement?

I don't see why one man should be compelled to feed another.

[albionmoonlight]

So your answer is that we should allow them to starve, because one man should not be compelled to feed another and we need to start making the tough choices at some point. I am not saying that it is not a defensible position (though I admit that it is one with which I do not agree). I am just trying to call a spade a spade.

I'll freely admit that my vision of things has a lot of problems, too (see, e.g., the abuses of the current welfare state). I just start from the philosophical position that a society should provide basic food and medicine to its retired citizens. The devil, as always, is in the details.

[wig]

And you have not answered my question. Should we let the current crop of poor retirees starve to death in order to teach the current generation to save properly?

Why not let those who want to provide assistance do it, instead of forcing everyone to?

[albionmoonlight]

Why not let those who want to provide assistance do it, instead of forcing everyone to?
I agree. Any social welfare system that I would establish would begin with encouraging private and charitable action. Such donations--coming from churches and community groups--would also have the added effect of bringing people together in small, tight-knit, social groups to bring about a common good. And that is not a bad thing at all.

To the extent that private donations can "solve" a problem, it is no longer a problem and I agree that the government should not subsidize it. Indeed, there would be nothing to subsidize.

We are discussing, however, the cracks in the system. What if there is not enough money? I am saying that one of the things a society should provide is a safety net for those individuals. Others think that society should provide more. Others think that it should provide less (I am sure that there are people who wonder why tax dollars should go to build roads. Let the people who drive the roads take up a collection and build them privately).

All I am trying to do is to get someone to acknowledge what seems to me to be the direct and natural consequence of the philosphy shared by a lot of people on this board--to the extent that there are old retired poor people in this society whose basic needs are not being met by family and charity, it is better to let them starve to teach others to save for the future and to discourage public dependance than it is to feed them with public money.

I say again--this position is not indefensible (people have been defending it all morning), I just want someone to call it like it is.

[BishopMVP]

All I am trying to do is to get someone to acknowledge what seems to me to be the direct and natural consequence of the philosphy shared by a lot of people on this board--to the extent that there are old retired poor people in this society whose basic needs are not being met by family and charity, it is better to let them starve to teach others to save for the future and to discourage public dependance than it is to feed them with public money.

I say again--this position is not indefensible (people have been defending it all morning), I just want someone to call it like it is.
I can't speak for the rest of the board, but I would wager most of the people against using their public money for social security and programs along those lines do so out of the poor implementation of said ideas rather than the ideals they are founded upon.

[QuikSand]

I agree. Any social welfare system that I would establish would begin with encouraging private and charitable action. Such donations--coming from churches and community groups--would also have the added effect of bringing people together in small, tight-knit, social groups to bring about a common good. And that is not a bad thing at all.

To the extent that private donations can "solve" a problem, it is no longer a problem and I agree that the government should not subsidize it. Indeed, there would be nothing to subsidize.

We are discussing, however, the cracks in the system. What if there is not enough money? I am saying that one of the things a society should provide is a safety net for those individuals.

Since we're having a discussion of incentives here, we need to think this through.

As long as there exists a universal "safety net" provided by the government (for the moment, please allow this assertion without judgment about its merits as public policy) then there is necessarily a reduced incentive for individuals or communities to offer charitable assistance to individuals to reach the level of that safety net. Why make private donations to give someone the same things that she can get on her own from the government just by drawing breath?

So, the notion of "charity first, government fills in the gaps" has itself some logical gaps, I think.


As far as the "so we ought to let one starve to teach the others a lesson?" argument - I agree with you conceptually, but bludgeoning someone's semantic concurrence doesn't necessarily further the argument at all.

[wig]

I can't speak for the rest of the board, but I would wager most of the people against using their public money for social security and programs along those lines do so out of the poor implementation of said ideas rather than the ideals they are founded upon.

Once again, this last post is why Bishop is indeed MVP.

:)

wig

[Fritz]

Safety net is an interesting metaphor. If one were a high wire artist, the safety net would catch you when you fall. But what then? Back to the high wire.

My understanding is that was the New Deal version of social programs.

What is being suggested by [some] people in the thread is dependence on govt. funding, which is different than a safety net.

[albionmoonlight]

As far as the "so we ought to let one starve to teach the others a lesson?" argument - I agree with you conceptually, but bludgeoning someone's semantic concurrence doesn't necessarily further the argument at all.I believe that it furthers the argument for a couple of reasons. First, I might be wrong to make such an assumption--I don't think that I am, but I am trying to force some sort of an answer from the other side of the debate to either educate me or the educate them. Second, to the extent that it presents the necessary consequences of one side of the argument, I think that it contributes to the debate. Because we live in a country that provides social security, welfare, Medicare, etc., it is easy to see the problems with that system; we live with them every day (I worked as a bag boy for a few summers, and I know there is something wrong with a system where people with food stamps are buying more expensive food than I get). The system has big problems, and no one needs to be told that--they "feel" it in a very visceral way (it's that rather large number on the "deductions" side of your paycheck).

I think, however, that the grass is always greener prejudices that we all have lead to a way of thinking that allows us to idealize the other way of doing things without really thinking of the downside. There are pros and cons to both sides of the debate--I am just making sure that the cons of the side with which I do not agree are stated clearly enough. I believe, however, that I have made my point on that somewhat narrow issue and will not continue to beat people over the head with it.

[wig]

see, it's because his username is actually "BishopMVP"

:)

[Fritz]

isn't it a little cheaper if you have the award in your name?

[wig]

it didn't seem to hurt Cy Young's career.

[Bubba Wheels]

There is an argument that certain 'elites' and 'powers-that-be' actually do have a long-term plan to turn the unwashed masses into a giant, gray, oozing-chunk of semi-illiterates that must depend on the Government for all Cradle-to-Grave sustanence.

Pardon my paranoia, but I see precious little evidence these days to dispute the above. The fairest tax, to everyone, would be some form of 'flat tax.' (There is a movement based on this called the 'Flat Tax Society." It would have the details. The ones opposed to a flat tax are the power brokers that would lose much of their clout and influence in being able to take from one group and give to others.

One final thought along philosophical lines. Seems to me if you are a person of faith, you have a certain feeling of not being alone, of having some incentive to strive and achieve for certain goals in life, financial and otherwise (Protestant Work Ethic?)

However, if you totally lack faith, see things strictly in terms of the here and now with your 5 senses, then you would be inclined to feel much more 'alone' in a cold, hard world and seek relief from government as a form of surrogate god. And if this were the case for you, then Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto could be seen as a worthy goal to obtain, regardless of means (heaven on earth without god, the Worker's Paradise).

[sabotai]

One final thought along philosophical lines. Seems to me if you are a person of faith, you have a certain feeling of not being alone, of having some incentive to strive and achieve for certain goals in life, financial and otherwise (Protestant Work Ethic?)

However, if you totally lack faith, see things strictly in terms of the here and now with your 5 senses, then you would be inclined to feel much more 'alone' in a cold, hard world and seek relief from government as a form of surrogate god. And if this were the case for you, then Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto could be seen as a worthy goal to obtain, regardless of means (heaven on earth without god, the Worker's Paradise).
....you can't be serious.

[wig]

That was priceless. :)

wig

[yabanci]

Myth #11: John Stossel is an objective and credible investigative reporter.

[Bubba Wheels]

....you can't be serious.
Why not? I think this more than anything else would explain the left's absolute hostility towards religion, and also explains liberal college professors. :cool:

[BishopMVP]

see, it's because his username is actually "BishopMVP"

:)
Let me tell you a little story about a man named Michael. A long, long time ago in a place far, far away he was a great man, but the evil one known as Drew did his best to hold him down.

Alright, I'm not creative enough, so long story short, the Patriots and their O-Line sucked, so I kept saying they should put in the mobile backup and he would be better for the team. For fantasy football, I used the team name Bishop4MVP. When my family got AOL, I just used this, although I dropped the 4 at some point. Ever since, I just stuck with it.

I think wig is just jealous his resident paranoid conspiracy-theorist position has been stolen by a new arrival.

[BishopMVP]

Myth #11: John Stossel is an objective and credible investigative reporter.
.....or you could try and dispute what he says rather than denouncing everything because he is on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you.

[NoMyths]

Some of the people in this world believe that it is important to be generous. Other people find it more rewarding to be selfish. Personally, I find generosity of spirit and goods to be far more rewarding and meaningful than selfishness. I feed another man (through taxes, or charity donations, or what have you) because I have the ability to--not because there's a great reward waiting for me (as I'm not religious), but simply because it's nice to be able to help someone out, and participate in the spirit of goodness. Almost all of the world's problems have come from selfishness.

[Glengoyne]

The Federal Income Tax has been said to be unconstitutional. Even though congress enacted the tax, as I understand it they made no penalty provision for not paying and hence, technically, it is not binding. Rob Lowe even makes mention of this during a West Wing episode (not actually considered a far-right show).
I think the amendment to the constitution declaring the right of the federal government to impose an imcome tax makes it pretty much constitutional.

[Glengoyne]

Just going off the link provided earlier in the thread - http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html - the highest federal bracket is 35%. I don't know how accurate it is, and in most places, once you add on state and local taxes, that probably goes up over 40% anyway.
I interpreted that as saying the people in the highest bracket pay 35% of their annual income in taxes. I am thinking the top bracket taxes income within that bracket at 40 something percent. I am not sure, but that was what I was trying to convey.

[Bubba Wheels]

Some of the people in this world believe that it is important to be generous. Other people find it more rewarding to be selfish. Personally, I find generosity of spirit and goods to be far more rewarding and meaningful than selfishness. I feed another man (through taxes, or charity donations, or what have you) because I have the ability to--not because there's a great reward waiting for me (as I'm not religious), but simply because it's nice to be able to help someone out, and participate in the spirit of goodness. Almost all of the world's problems have come from selfishness.
Doesn't change a thing I noted in my post. Fact is there is a great distinction in how you give...charity is voluntary giving to those in need, taxes are forced giving to the government to disperse as it sees fit.

[Fritz]

Some of the people in this world believe that it is important to be generous. Other people find it more rewarding to be selfish. Personally, I find generosity of spirit and goods to be far more rewarding and meaningful than selfishness. I feed another man (through taxes, or charity donations, or what have you) because I have the ability to--not because there's a great reward waiting for me (as I'm not religious), but simply because it's nice to be able to help someone out, and participate in the spirit of goodness. Almost all of the world's problems have come from selfishness.

Some of the people in this world believe that it is important to be responsible. Other people find it more rewarding to sit on their ass and take handouts. Personally, I find responsibility for my own spirit and goods to be far more rewarding and meaningful than sitting on my ass and taking handouts. I feed myself because I have the ability to--not because there's a "great society" taking from the labor of other men, but simply because making even modest use of your talents is all it takes in most cases. Almost all of the world's problems have come from someone sitting on their ass with their hand out.

[Butter]

What about my parents?

They have taken personal responsibility their entire lives. My dad has held a steady job his entire life. He saved as much as he could. But he grew up in an orphanage because his mother was too lazy to care for him. My mother also grew up in that orphanage, because her mother had a nervous breakdown when she was little. They both spent their most formative years being told they had no chance to make something of themselves. Then they went out and tried to prove everybody wrong.

My dad worked as many menial jobs as he could get hired for. We lived meagerly. Then, while working as a janitor, he essentially tore his back apart. My mom broke her wrist once, playing volleyball, and the doctor who set it so badly messed it up that she can barely use her left hand without scorching pain. She also received serious neck injuries after once being rear-ended by a hit-and-run idiot. My dad spent some time on disability, then, with help from the government, was able to get a 2 year computer science degree. He spent the last 10 years working as a network technician for a local hospital. My parents bought a house, and do not spend more than they can afford.

Then, my dad about 2 years ago went through another series of health problems. He can barely walk most days, let alone go to work. My parents long-term disability is about to run out. My parents have already been turned down for private insurance. They have also been denied Medicaid because the disability they will soon lose is "too much" to receive Medicaid. The money they have saved has long since run out because the HMO's won't approve certain treatments to help my father.

So, I ask you, those of you who love to toss around the term "personal responsibility", where have my parents gone wrong? They worked, they saved, they spent their own money, they didn't overspend, they haven't overextended themselves, they fairly used government assistance to better themselves, and still they are going to be left with nothing. Nothing. Because they have health problems.

You can all take your vague "personal responsibility" bullshit arguments and stick them up your ass.

[Fritz]

why is this my problem?

(edit: I know this post is callous, but it is a fair question.)

edit 2 - perhaps the question I mean to ask is why should this my federally mandated obligation?

[sabotai]

I guess here is where I would tell the tale of my parents, how they both did not (could not...) finish high school, spent many years living far below the middle-class level while raising two kids (and for the tail end, three kids), struggling to simply afford to put food on the table, and how they are now successful business owners and have a good amount of savings despite many problems they faced along the way...

But then again, I find these "my parents" arguements to be meaningless, so I won't.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that we may have gotten to the point where we are beyond politics and simply getting to the point of why do humans tend to organize into political units. For example, I believe that one of the things that a society should provide for its citizens is clean water and sanitation. Even if I had my own well and septic tank, I would not mind my taxes being used to help subsidize sewer lines because I believe that society as a whole is healthier, happier, and (this is the most abstract) more civilized when the populace is given easy access to water and sanitation.

I also believe that a society should provide for the basic health and basic welfare needs of its citizens who are physically unable to provide for themselves--especially those who have worked long and hard and contributed to the society throughout their lifetimes. I believe that a society should do this because it demonstrates compassion, a capacity for empathy, a belief that human life is worth something even if it cannot contribute to the production of resources for the society as a whole. I want to live in a society that shares those values.

As to why this choice should be imposed on others through mandatory taxes: there are several examples of situations where everyone agrees to have a sacrifice mandated on them for the public good. For a simple example, there are hunting and fishing limits. I like to fish. It does not make any sense for me to limit the amount of fish that I catch. As long as everyone else is acting to preserve the fish--I can catch all that I can eat with impunity. If there were no regulation, then almost everyone would think like me and we would quickly run out of fish. A few people may voluntarily limit themselves, but they would be outnumbered. Accordingly, we force a limit on everyone because we as a society have decided that the gains (long lasting fisheries) outweigh the sacrifice (the inability for any one person to catch as much fish as he wants on any given day). I think that once society decides to espouse the values articulated in the proceeding paragraph, then it is OK to "force" everyone to make a contribution to those values because otherwise we would run into the problem of it not being in the interest of any one person to act for the public good. Sometimes, if a society holds a value, it needs to be able to compel its citizens to act on that value. It's simply a problem that occurs when one deals with groups of people.

All the above is a long winded way of saying that we may be at the agree to disagree point. I think that something that gets to the level of "what is the purpose of a society" may simply be a deeply held belief that can't really be debated like a more superficial political issue.

Sabotai--using concrete examples to clarify the potential results of abstract arguments is a valid rhetorical strategy. I agree that they can be abused and should not be overused (like all rhetorical strategies). I disagree, however, with your characterization of them as "meaningless." I think that they can be a useful tool when used in debates involving issues that affect the real world.

[Butter]

why is this my problem?

I forgot about this thread until a few minutes ago.

I really don't give a shit why you think it should or shouldn't be your responsibility. It's nobody's responsibility to take care of my parents except for me and them. Should the government help them? I think so. I merely posted my long synopsis of my current personal situation to vividly illustrate a point, which I'll quote again for effect:

You can all take your vague "personal responsibility" bullshit arguments and stick them up your ass.

My parents have taken responsibility their whole lives, and it's gotten them dick. So, maybe you could come up with something besides just using that same phrase when arguing against big government?

[Fritz]

Have they already had their Rosey American Future (tm) cards punched?

---

AML- Folks on my side of the argument might have an easier time with this (not to say that I would) if it were not for the terrible abuses (many of which are institutionalized) of the welfare system. For the record, I am not accusing your parents of any such abuses.