|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 30 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:
Funny, the state with the highest unemployment benefits (Mass.) has an unemployment rate at least 0.5 pp lower than the national average. Somebody should tell those suckers that their free time is more valuable and they should act more selfishly.
Yeah, but wages in MA are highest in the nation (statewide average, excluding DC) so the opportunity cost of not working is higher as well 
|
On May 30 2013 10:15 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:
Funny, the state with the highest unemployment benefits (Mass.) has an unemployment rate at least 0.5 pp lower than the national average. Somebody should tell those suckers that their free time is more valuable and they should act more selfishly. But you realize you might be pointing the causation arrow in the wrong direction, right? Massachusetts might have the highest unemployment benefits because they have the lowest unemployment and the state can afford to be generous.
My argument is an axiomatic one. He is going to have to show through reason and logic where I've made a mistake. It is the same thing with minimum wage laws, or price controls when it comes to rent. These are economic laws. Never mind the fact he is wrong and Mass. does not have the highest unemployment bene's (that would be Hawaii). There are a lot of factors that play into unemployment and simply going - X state has this bene's and X unemployment rate is entirely farcical. How you can exclude the thousands of other factors, or simply isolate one factor is quite frankly impossible. We know by logic that unemployment benefits sustains unemployment levels until such time as it runs out (if you haven't noticed, most people on unemployment bene's don't start looking for a job until a few weeks out from when UI ends), just as minimum wage laws create unemployment by raising wage rates above market levels.
Now you can argue whether that is good or bad, but the fact is these things do cause and sustain unemployment. Arguing the opposite...well, is like arguing gravity does not exist.
|
On May 30 2013 10:24 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:On May 30 2013 09:22 Chocolate wrote:On May 30 2013 09:04 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:On May 30 2013 08:45 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 08:41 aksfjh wrote:On May 30 2013 08:26 Sermokala wrote:
He address's that there is a glut in the workforce and with the same post dismiss's any solution at all to deal with said workforce glut.
No one can look at the current recovery and say that its a good situation. Other countries are already waging a tariff war on us. There will always be people who are not competitive, selling our poor into bread lines and a welfare lifestyle on the alter of free trade is no reasonable way to run a country. Free trade only works when it goes both ways, and it is definitely not going both ways. So either give our poor jobs or reign in china's anti-free trade policies but for fucks sake stop living in a fantasy world where a free trade ideology is infallible. You solve the glut that we have now with a fiscal and monetary shock that entices businesses to invest in personnel. We as a nation wonder why we have unemployment problems and then we look and see we pay people to be unemployed. It's pretty disingenuous to suggest that people who are unemployed are so because they can collect unemployment insurance or something similar. It's specious to assert that people who collect UI are doing so in an attempt to make easy money, just as it's specious to claim that women have children for the sake of maternity leave. I made no such argument, my only argument is the fact that if you make more money by not working, you're not going to seek a job in the first place. Similarly, if unemployment pays you 35,000$, most people will not take a job that makes less than 50-60k since they value their leisure/other time/activities greater than that 25k. This does add to unemployment problems. If you could address my argument without strawmanning I would appreciate it. Are you making the argument that paying people to be unemployed, does not cause unemployment? Unemployment is generally only available for about 6 months after being laid off and generally pays a percentage of previous income (which is capped at different amount at different places). I have a hard time believing anybody could make more than 30k per year on unemployment. Maybe services like medicaid, tanf, section 8, etc. with unemployment could add up to more than 30k, but I'm sure that in most cases they don't. Also, you have to realize that cutting welfare would lead to huge problems. Now we have a small number of educated people with job training not receiving adequate funds to survive- that's bad. We'd also have a very large number of uneducated, unemployable people receiving no assistance either. They could either die, get a job, or turn to crime. None of them will want to die and there wouldn't be enough jobs for all of them, but I'd bet that crime would go way, way up. The problem is balancing welfare- it has to be able to provide, but it can't provide too much. I know conservatives love to target welfare but it really isn't the problem. Oh c'mon. Are you really making the argument that we're providing welfare to prevent people from becoming criminals? You're really holding us hostage to that choice from the poor? Not entirely, welfare is a necessary component of a just society. Some abuse it and that needs to be shored up, but there would be a lot of consequences if it were eliminated. We'd be introducing to society a lower class that is poorer than before and one which would be unable to live at the meager standards which they were afforded before. We have lax gun laws, a non-homogeneous society than can promote us-vs-them culture, and also a culture which glorifies violence. If we suddenly pissed off all the poor people I'm sure you know what would happen. It's not a hostage situation, it's simply the current state of affairs that is largely a result of the culture of the US. Obviously the solution is to break the cycle of poverty by providing high quality education to the children of the poor, but because of the tendency of the wealthy to keep their kids from interacting with those of the poor and limited resources for schools that are struggling (which, shockingly, often have the poorest students) that isn't happening.
Welfare creates dependency and servitude. It does not raise people out of poverty, but makes poverty comfortable. Do you provide for the poor by handing them a fish, or teaching them how to fish? I think I'm with Booker T. Washington and Benjamin Franklin on this issue. Also, how is it just to steal the just acquisition of property from one person, and give it to another? Would it be just if I came up to you stole your wallet and then donated the proceeds to charity? It is the same scenario. An injustice cannot provide for justice.
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor[5] (29 November 1766). -- Benjamin Franklin
|
On May 30 2013 10:46 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:24 Chocolate wrote:On May 30 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:On May 30 2013 09:22 Chocolate wrote:On May 30 2013 09:04 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:On May 30 2013 08:45 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 08:41 aksfjh wrote:On May 30 2013 08:26 Sermokala wrote:
He address's that there is a glut in the workforce and with the same post dismiss's any solution at all to deal with said workforce glut.
No one can look at the current recovery and say that its a good situation. Other countries are already waging a tariff war on us. There will always be people who are not competitive, selling our poor into bread lines and a welfare lifestyle on the alter of free trade is no reasonable way to run a country. Free trade only works when it goes both ways, and it is definitely not going both ways. So either give our poor jobs or reign in china's anti-free trade policies but for fucks sake stop living in a fantasy world where a free trade ideology is infallible. You solve the glut that we have now with a fiscal and monetary shock that entices businesses to invest in personnel. We as a nation wonder why we have unemployment problems and then we look and see we pay people to be unemployed. It's pretty disingenuous to suggest that people who are unemployed are so because they can collect unemployment insurance or something similar. It's specious to assert that people who collect UI are doing so in an attempt to make easy money, just as it's specious to claim that women have children for the sake of maternity leave. I made no such argument, my only argument is the fact that if you make more money by not working, you're not going to seek a job in the first place. Similarly, if unemployment pays you 35,000$, most people will not take a job that makes less than 50-60k since they value their leisure/other time/activities greater than that 25k. This does add to unemployment problems. If you could address my argument without strawmanning I would appreciate it. Are you making the argument that paying people to be unemployed, does not cause unemployment? Unemployment is generally only available for about 6 months after being laid off and generally pays a percentage of previous income (which is capped at different amount at different places). I have a hard time believing anybody could make more than 30k per year on unemployment. Maybe services like medicaid, tanf, section 8, etc. with unemployment could add up to more than 30k, but I'm sure that in most cases they don't. Also, you have to realize that cutting welfare would lead to huge problems. Now we have a small number of educated people with job training not receiving adequate funds to survive- that's bad. We'd also have a very large number of uneducated, unemployable people receiving no assistance either. They could either die, get a job, or turn to crime. None of them will want to die and there wouldn't be enough jobs for all of them, but I'd bet that crime would go way, way up. The problem is balancing welfare- it has to be able to provide, but it can't provide too much. I know conservatives love to target welfare but it really isn't the problem. Oh c'mon. Are you really making the argument that we're providing welfare to prevent people from becoming criminals? You're really holding us hostage to that choice from the poor? Not entirely, welfare is a necessary component of a just society. Some abuse it and that needs to be shored up, but there would be a lot of consequences if it were eliminated. We'd be introducing to society a lower class that is poorer than before and one which would be unable to live at the meager standards which they were afforded before. We have lax gun laws, a non-homogeneous society than can promote us-vs-them culture, and also a culture which glorifies violence. If we suddenly pissed off all the poor people I'm sure you know what would happen. It's not a hostage situation, it's simply the current state of affairs that is largely a result of the culture of the US. Obviously the solution is to break the cycle of poverty by providing high quality education to the children of the poor, but because of the tendency of the wealthy to keep their kids from interacting with those of the poor and limited resources for schools that are struggling (which, shockingly, often have the poorest students) that isn't happening. Welfare creates dependency and servitude. It does not raise people out of poverty, but makes poverty comfortable. Do you provide for the poor by handing them a fish, or teaching them how to fish? I think I'm with Booker T. Washington and Benjamin Franklin on this issue. Also, how is it just to steal the just acquisition of property from one person, and give it to another? Would it be just if I came up to you stole your wallet and then donated the proceeds to charity? It is the same scenario. An injustice cannot provide for justice. Show nested quote +I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor[5] (29 November 1766). -- Benjamin Franklin
Hidden premise: people are in poverty because it's their fault (hence why we need to "teach them"). This is utterly unfounded; I really doubt you can actually prove it, because nobody in the history of forever has. Poverty is a real consequence of a capitalistic market system; it can only be abrogated by the embrace of socialism or the implementation of social security projects.(I'm aware that this is an assertion, but it's no less valid than the one you've put forward given the evidence so far supplied). The rest of your post is pure conjecture mixed with a historical anecdote.
Equivocating taxation with theft is also utterly ridiculous.
There's also the notion that abandoning people to poverty is sickeningly immoral.
|
On May 30 2013 10:42 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:15 coverpunch wrote:On May 30 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:
Funny, the state with the highest unemployment benefits (Mass.) has an unemployment rate at least 0.5 pp lower than the national average. Somebody should tell those suckers that their free time is more valuable and they should act more selfishly. But you realize you might be pointing the causation arrow in the wrong direction, right? Massachusetts might have the highest unemployment benefits because they have the lowest unemployment and the state can afford to be generous. My argument is an axiomatic one. He is going to have to show through reason and logic where I've made a mistake. It is the same thing with minimum wage laws, or price controls when it comes to rent. These are economic laws. Never mind the fact he is wrong and Mass. does not have the highest unemployment bene's (that would be Hawaii). There are a lot of factors that play into unemployment and simply going - X state has this bene's and X unemployment rate is entirely farcical. How you can exclude the thousands of other factors, or simply isolate one factor is quite frankly impossible. We know by logic that unemployment benefits sustains unemployment levels until such time as it runs out (if you haven't noticed, most people on unemployment bene's don't start looking for a job until a few weeks out from when UI ends), just as minimum wage laws create unemployment by raising wage rates above market levels. Now you can argue whether that is good or bad, but the fact is these things do cause and sustain unemployment. Arguing the opposite...well, is like arguing gravity does not exist.
Maximum Weekly Unemployment Benefits for 2013
Alabama - $265
Alaska - $441
Arizona - $240
Arkansas - $457
California - $450
Colorado - $454
Connecticut - $555
Delaware - $330
District of Columbia - $405
Florida - $275
Georgia - $330
Hawaii - $560
Idaho - $343
Illinois - $385
Indiana - $390
Iowa - $459
Kansas - $420
Kentucky - $415
Louisiana - $258
Maine - $372
Maryland - $410
Massachusetts - $653
Michigan - $362
Minnesota - $585
Mississippi - $235
Missouri - $320
Montana - $446
Nebraska - $348
Nevada - $398
New Hampshire - $427
New Jersey - $600
New Mexico - $455
New York - $405
North Carolina - $535, $350, effective 7/1/13
North Dakota - $470
Ohio - $524
Oklahoma - $368
Oregon - $507
Pennsylvania - $573
Puerto Rico - $133
Rhode Island - $566
South Carolina - $326
South Dakota - $295
Tennessee - $275
Texas - $426
Utah - $451
Vermont - $425
Virginia - $378
Virgin Islands - $454
Washington - $604
West Virginia - $424
Wisconsin - $363
Wyoming - $387
http://jobsearch.about.com/od/unemployment/a/weekly-unemployment-benefits.htm
Booya!
|
On May 30 2013 11:18 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:46 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 10:24 Chocolate wrote:On May 30 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:On May 30 2013 09:22 Chocolate wrote:On May 30 2013 09:04 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:On May 30 2013 08:45 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 08:41 aksfjh wrote:On May 30 2013 08:26 Sermokala wrote:
He address's that there is a glut in the workforce and with the same post dismiss's any solution at all to deal with said workforce glut.
No one can look at the current recovery and say that its a good situation. Other countries are already waging a tariff war on us. There will always be people who are not competitive, selling our poor into bread lines and a welfare lifestyle on the alter of free trade is no reasonable way to run a country. Free trade only works when it goes both ways, and it is definitely not going both ways. So either give our poor jobs or reign in china's anti-free trade policies but for fucks sake stop living in a fantasy world where a free trade ideology is infallible. You solve the glut that we have now with a fiscal and monetary shock that entices businesses to invest in personnel. We as a nation wonder why we have unemployment problems and then we look and see we pay people to be unemployed. It's pretty disingenuous to suggest that people who are unemployed are so because they can collect unemployment insurance or something similar. It's specious to assert that people who collect UI are doing so in an attempt to make easy money, just as it's specious to claim that women have children for the sake of maternity leave. I made no such argument, my only argument is the fact that if you make more money by not working, you're not going to seek a job in the first place. Similarly, if unemployment pays you 35,000$, most people will not take a job that makes less than 50-60k since they value their leisure/other time/activities greater than that 25k. This does add to unemployment problems. If you could address my argument without strawmanning I would appreciate it. Are you making the argument that paying people to be unemployed, does not cause unemployment? Unemployment is generally only available for about 6 months after being laid off and generally pays a percentage of previous income (which is capped at different amount at different places). I have a hard time believing anybody could make more than 30k per year on unemployment. Maybe services like medicaid, tanf, section 8, etc. with unemployment could add up to more than 30k, but I'm sure that in most cases they don't. Also, you have to realize that cutting welfare would lead to huge problems. Now we have a small number of educated people with job training not receiving adequate funds to survive- that's bad. We'd also have a very large number of uneducated, unemployable people receiving no assistance either. They could either die, get a job, or turn to crime. None of them will want to die and there wouldn't be enough jobs for all of them, but I'd bet that crime would go way, way up. The problem is balancing welfare- it has to be able to provide, but it can't provide too much. I know conservatives love to target welfare but it really isn't the problem. Oh c'mon. Are you really making the argument that we're providing welfare to prevent people from becoming criminals? You're really holding us hostage to that choice from the poor? Not entirely, welfare is a necessary component of a just society. Some abuse it and that needs to be shored up, but there would be a lot of consequences if it were eliminated. We'd be introducing to society a lower class that is poorer than before and one which would be unable to live at the meager standards which they were afforded before. We have lax gun laws, a non-homogeneous society than can promote us-vs-them culture, and also a culture which glorifies violence. If we suddenly pissed off all the poor people I'm sure you know what would happen. It's not a hostage situation, it's simply the current state of affairs that is largely a result of the culture of the US. Obviously the solution is to break the cycle of poverty by providing high quality education to the children of the poor, but because of the tendency of the wealthy to keep their kids from interacting with those of the poor and limited resources for schools that are struggling (which, shockingly, often have the poorest students) that isn't happening. Welfare creates dependency and servitude. It does not raise people out of poverty, but makes poverty comfortable. Do you provide for the poor by handing them a fish, or teaching them how to fish? I think I'm with Booker T. Washington and Benjamin Franklin on this issue. Also, how is it just to steal the just acquisition of property from one person, and give it to another? Would it be just if I came up to you stole your wallet and then donated the proceeds to charity? It is the same scenario. An injustice cannot provide for justice. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor[5] (29 November 1766). -- Benjamin Franklin
Hidden premise: people are in poverty because it's their fault (hence why we need to "teach them"). This is utterly unfounded; I really doubt you can actually prove it, because nobody in the history of forever has. Poverty is a real consequence of a capitalistic market system; it can only be abrogated by the embrace of socialism or the implementation of social security projects.(I'm aware that this is an assertion, but it's no less valid than the one you've put forward given the evidence so far supplied). The rest of your post is pure conjecture mixed with a historical anecdote. Equivocating taxation with theft is also utterly ridiculous. There's also the notion that abandoning people to poverty is sickeningly immoral.
If you took that expression as literal, then you're about as smart as the evangelicals who take the Bible as literal. It is used to convey that dependency breeds complacency in poverty, whereas, independence brings people out of poverty. Welfare is always used to scare people into voting for certain people, and taxation is theft precisely because it is coercive, involuntary, and backed by the Weapons and Force of the State. Try and say no to taxation, or the States' pet programs or edicts. You'll soon find yourself on the other side of their thugs (police) and gendarmes.
Is it no longer highway robbery when 'police' pull you over for ridiculous revenue measures (red light camera's, etc.) just because they have a Government uniform and a badge?
We need to dismiss with this idea that there are two ethical systems - one for so-called public or Government institutions, and one for private individuals and institutions. Murder is murder no matter who it is or how many it is, and thievery is thievery for the same reasons.
Would you argue that violations of civil liberties aren't an imposition against ones will? There's no difference in measure or response from and by the State for either scenario.
Again, we simply have two very divergent belief systems, and empirically, if you asked the average USSR, Pol Pot Cambodian, etc. if they were better off than freer societies and economies they would probably have no idea because socialism is the epitome of corruption of power meaning strict censure and terrible impoverishment of the people for the benefit of the few connected political.
I am sure you feel superior since it is so easier to spend others money and property. May I see your charitable donations for the last few years?
|
Well I'm all for instituting a system that somehow teaches all the poor to contribute at a productive level. That's just not realistic in the real world. Poverty always has existed and will continue to exist under the current economic structure. I'd rather just let the poor have some food than leave them to their own machinations. I also think BF lived in a different world. Back then you were considered to be doing fine if you were just providing food for yourself and had a roof. You also had the means to grow food yourself and build your own place. We live in a specialized, technology-driven world. It is different.
|
On May 30 2013 10:42 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:15 coverpunch wrote:On May 30 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:
Funny, the state with the highest unemployment benefits (Mass.) has an unemployment rate at least 0.5 pp lower than the national average. Somebody should tell those suckers that their free time is more valuable and they should act more selfishly. But you realize you might be pointing the causation arrow in the wrong direction, right? Massachusetts might have the highest unemployment benefits because they have the lowest unemployment and the state can afford to be generous. My argument is an axiomatic one. He is going to have to show through reason and logic where I've made a mistake. It is the same thing with minimum wage laws, or price controls when it comes to rent. These are economic laws. Never mind the fact he is wrong and Mass. does not have the highest unemployment bene's (that would be Hawaii). There are a lot of factors that play into unemployment and simply going - X state has this bene's and X unemployment rate is entirely farcical. How you can exclude the thousands of other factors, or simply isolate one factor is quite frankly impossible. We know by logic that unemployment benefits sustains unemployment levels until such time as it runs out (if you haven't noticed, most people on unemployment bene's don't start looking for a job until a few weeks out from when UI ends), just as minimum wage laws create unemployment by raising wage rates above market levels. Now you can argue whether that is good or bad, but the fact is these things do cause and sustain unemployment. Arguing the opposite...well, is like arguing gravity does not exist.
"Show through reason and logic where I've made a mistake"? But to disagree with any of your assumptions is "like arguing gravity doesn't exist". Gee, how can one argue with logic like that?
I'll try anyways: you're wrong. Minimum wage laws have a very justifiable history to them. Instead of quoting Ben Franklin, you should look into what started these socialistic programs, and how "wonderful" it was to "work your way out of poverty" without them.
It's like the right-wing just wants to pretend we never tried these things their way before. Like we went from Ben Franklin to pure socialism overnight, and things like the Industrial Revolution never happened. A lot of countries don't regulate their employer-employee relationships at all. A lot of countries used to not do this as well, including ours, until they realized they had too many good people suffering that didn't need to suffer.
I've read your last page's posts as well. It's tiresome rhetoric. It's been done to death. "Feed a man to fish..." The world is a lot more complicated than you think, as is human nature. People want to work. That's something you clearly just don't believe, but it's as true as anything else you've written.
You simply dismiss the guy's example about Mass., just one of many examples in this large world that might show your very large-sweeping generalizations to be less than perfect, because there are too many other factors to be accounted for -- which is kind of true, I'll give you. These things are complicated and largely theoretical, or at least opinionated. And yet you then ask the guy to "prove" through "reason and logic" where you've "made a mistake". I think you made a mistake in confusing your opinions with facts.
|
On May 30 2013 11:31 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 11:18 Shiori wrote:On May 30 2013 10:46 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 10:24 Chocolate wrote:On May 30 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:On May 30 2013 09:22 Chocolate wrote:On May 30 2013 09:04 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:On May 30 2013 08:45 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 08:41 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
You solve the glut that we have now with a fiscal and monetary shock that entices businesses to invest in personnel. We as a nation wonder why we have unemployment problems and then we look and see we pay people to be unemployed. It's pretty disingenuous to suggest that people who are unemployed are so because they can collect unemployment insurance or something similar. It's specious to assert that people who collect UI are doing so in an attempt to make easy money, just as it's specious to claim that women have children for the sake of maternity leave. I made no such argument, my only argument is the fact that if you make more money by not working, you're not going to seek a job in the first place. Similarly, if unemployment pays you 35,000$, most people will not take a job that makes less than 50-60k since they value their leisure/other time/activities greater than that 25k. This does add to unemployment problems. If you could address my argument without strawmanning I would appreciate it. Are you making the argument that paying people to be unemployed, does not cause unemployment? Unemployment is generally only available for about 6 months after being laid off and generally pays a percentage of previous income (which is capped at different amount at different places). I have a hard time believing anybody could make more than 30k per year on unemployment. Maybe services like medicaid, tanf, section 8, etc. with unemployment could add up to more than 30k, but I'm sure that in most cases they don't. Also, you have to realize that cutting welfare would lead to huge problems. Now we have a small number of educated people with job training not receiving adequate funds to survive- that's bad. We'd also have a very large number of uneducated, unemployable people receiving no assistance either. They could either die, get a job, or turn to crime. None of them will want to die and there wouldn't be enough jobs for all of them, but I'd bet that crime would go way, way up. The problem is balancing welfare- it has to be able to provide, but it can't provide too much. I know conservatives love to target welfare but it really isn't the problem. Oh c'mon. Are you really making the argument that we're providing welfare to prevent people from becoming criminals? You're really holding us hostage to that choice from the poor? Not entirely, welfare is a necessary component of a just society. Some abuse it and that needs to be shored up, but there would be a lot of consequences if it were eliminated. We'd be introducing to society a lower class that is poorer than before and one which would be unable to live at the meager standards which they were afforded before. We have lax gun laws, a non-homogeneous society than can promote us-vs-them culture, and also a culture which glorifies violence. If we suddenly pissed off all the poor people I'm sure you know what would happen. It's not a hostage situation, it's simply the current state of affairs that is largely a result of the culture of the US. Obviously the solution is to break the cycle of poverty by providing high quality education to the children of the poor, but because of the tendency of the wealthy to keep their kids from interacting with those of the poor and limited resources for schools that are struggling (which, shockingly, often have the poorest students) that isn't happening. Welfare creates dependency and servitude. It does not raise people out of poverty, but makes poverty comfortable. Do you provide for the poor by handing them a fish, or teaching them how to fish? I think I'm with Booker T. Washington and Benjamin Franklin on this issue. Also, how is it just to steal the just acquisition of property from one person, and give it to another? Would it be just if I came up to you stole your wallet and then donated the proceeds to charity? It is the same scenario. An injustice cannot provide for justice. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor[5] (29 November 1766). -- Benjamin Franklin
Hidden premise: people are in poverty because it's their fault (hence why we need to "teach them"). This is utterly unfounded; I really doubt you can actually prove it, because nobody in the history of forever has. Poverty is a real consequence of a capitalistic market system; it can only be abrogated by the embrace of socialism or the implementation of social security projects.(I'm aware that this is an assertion, but it's no less valid than the one you've put forward given the evidence so far supplied). The rest of your post is pure conjecture mixed with a historical anecdote. Equivocating taxation with theft is also utterly ridiculous. There's also the notion that abandoning people to poverty is sickeningly immoral. If you took that expression as literal, then you're about as smart as the evangelicals who take the Bible as literal. It is used to convey that dependency breeds complacency in poverty, whereas, independence brings people out of poverty. Welfare is always used to scare people into voting for certain people, and taxation is theft precisely because it is coercive, involuntary, and backed by the Weapons and Force of the State. Try and say no to taxation, or the States' pet programs or edicts. You'll soon find yourself on the other side of their thugs (police) and gendarmes. Is it no longer highway robbery when 'police' pull you over for ridiculous revenue measures (red light camera's, etc.) just because they have a Government uniform and a badge? We need to dismiss with this idea that there are two ethical systems - one for so-called public or Government institutions, and one for private individuals and institutions. Murder is murder no matter who it is or how many it is, and thievery is thievery for the same reasons. Would you argue that violations of civil liberties aren't an imposition against ones will? There's no difference in measure or response from and by the State for either scenario. Again, we simply have two very divergent belief systems, and empirically, if you asked the average USSR, Pol Pot Cambodian, etc. if they were better off than freer societies and economies they would probably have no idea because socialism is the epitome of corruption of power meaning strict censure and terrible impoverishment of the people for the benefit of the few connected political. I am sure you feel superior since it is so easier to spend others money and property. May I see your charitable donations for the last few years?
Wow there's a lot wrong with this. I'll try to wade between the various ad hominems (amusing coming from someone who whipped out 'logical positivism' a few hours ago) and explain why this is so silly to me.
1) " It is used to convey that dependency breeds complacency in poverty, whereas, independence brings people out of poverty. " Prove it.
2) "Welfare is always used to scare people into voting for certain people," Always? That's a pretty bold claim. There are no instances of welfare being promoted that aren't attempts to scare people into voting?
3) " Try and say no to taxation, or the States' pet programs or edicts. " I think what you mean to say (and conveniently fail to mention) is that one cannot say no to taxation while simultaneously being a citizen of that state and reaping the benefits of being a citizen. You don't want to pay taxes? Fine, don't. Renounce your citizenship, forfeit any access to state services (roads, military protection, legal protection etc. etc.) and go live in Antarctica.
4) Your "empirical" evaluation of socialism (which is dishonest because your examples refer exclusively to totalitarian pseudo-oligarchies which are been almost universally derided by actual socialists for their perversion of the philosophy) is no more an indictment of socialism than Hitler's broadly Keynesian Third Reich is an indictment of Keynesian economics.
5) Charitable donations? I don't discuss my finances with random strangers on the internet. I donate what I can afford to donate, and volunteer my time when I can. Oh, and I pay my taxes.
Imma do you a favour and give you a definition of socialism, since you clearly have absolutely no idea whatsoever of what it is: "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy." - Wiki. Astoundingly, this doesn't mention anything about the enrichment of the "well connected political" because that would be a third cause fallacy.
|
I remember when I attempted to debate libertarians seriously. Bottom line, if somebody thinks taxation is theft by force, you're not likely going to change their ideas on anything, even simple things, like the best brand of ketchup. I guess it just makes you appreciate posters like Jonny in the long run. Speaking of which,
On May 30 2013 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:
Funny, the state with the highest unemployment benefits (Mass.) has an unemployment rate at least 0.5 pp lower than the national average. Somebody should tell those suckers that their free time is more valuable and they should act more selfishly. Yeah, but wages in MA are highest in the nation (statewide average, excluding DC) so the opportunity cost of not working is higher as well
Opportunity costs in Arizona are even higher, getting less than 1/3 of the average pay in benefits. They have an unemployment rate that's greater than 0.5 pp over the national average. Not that I seriously think there's any significant correlation here, I just think they're cool stats.
|
On May 30 2013 11:49 aksfjh wrote:I remember when I attempted to debate libertarians seriously. Bottom line, if somebody thinks taxation is theft by force, you're not likely going to change their ideas on anything, even simple things, like the best brand of ketchup. I guess it just makes you appreciate posters like Jonny in the long run. Speaking of which, Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 30 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:
Funny, the state with the highest unemployment benefits (Mass.) has an unemployment rate at least 0.5 pp lower than the national average. Somebody should tell those suckers that their free time is more valuable and they should act more selfishly. Yeah, but wages in MA are highest in the nation (statewide average, excluding DC) so the opportunity cost of not working is higher as well Opportunity costs in Arizona are even higher, getting less than 1/3 of the average pay in benefits. They have an unemployment rate that's greater than 0.5 pp over the national average. Not that I seriously think there's any significant correlation here, I just think they're cool stats.
I'm pretty hardcore libertarian and I do not think taxation is theft by force, I think wasteful spending of tax payer dollars is theft.
|
On May 30 2013 11:24 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:42 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 10:15 coverpunch wrote:On May 30 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:
Funny, the state with the highest unemployment benefits (Mass.) has an unemployment rate at least 0.5 pp lower than the national average. Somebody should tell those suckers that their free time is more valuable and they should act more selfishly. But you realize you might be pointing the causation arrow in the wrong direction, right? Massachusetts might have the highest unemployment benefits because they have the lowest unemployment and the state can afford to be generous. My argument is an axiomatic one. He is going to have to show through reason and logic where I've made a mistake. It is the same thing with minimum wage laws, or price controls when it comes to rent. These are economic laws. Never mind the fact he is wrong and Mass. does not have the highest unemployment bene's (that would be Hawaii). There are a lot of factors that play into unemployment and simply going - X state has this bene's and X unemployment rate is entirely farcical. How you can exclude the thousands of other factors, or simply isolate one factor is quite frankly impossible. We know by logic that unemployment benefits sustains unemployment levels until such time as it runs out (if you haven't noticed, most people on unemployment bene's don't start looking for a job until a few weeks out from when UI ends), just as minimum wage laws create unemployment by raising wage rates above market levels. Now you can argue whether that is good or bad, but the fact is these things do cause and sustain unemployment. Arguing the opposite...well, is like arguing gravity does not exist. Show nested quote +Maximum Weekly Unemployment Benefits for 2013
Alabama - $265
Alaska - $441
Arizona - $240
Arkansas - $457
California - $450
Colorado - $454
Connecticut - $555
Delaware - $330
District of Columbia - $405
Florida - $275
Georgia - $330
Hawaii - $560
Idaho - $343
Illinois - $385
Indiana - $390
Iowa - $459
Kansas - $420
Kentucky - $415
Louisiana - $258
Maine - $372
Maryland - $410
Massachusetts - $653
Michigan - $362
Minnesota - $585
Mississippi - $235
Missouri - $320
Montana - $446
Nebraska - $348
Nevada - $398
New Hampshire - $427
New Jersey - $600
New Mexico - $455
New York - $405
North Carolina - $535, $350, effective 7/1/13
North Dakota - $470
Ohio - $524
Oklahoma - $368
Oregon - $507
Pennsylvania - $573
Puerto Rico - $133
Rhode Island - $566
South Carolina - $326
South Dakota - $295
Tennessee - $275
Texas - $426
Utah - $451
Vermont - $425
Virginia - $378
Virgin Islands - $454
Washington - $604
West Virginia - $424
Wisconsin - $363
Wyoming - $387 http://jobsearch.about.com/od/unemployment/a/weekly-unemployment-benefits.htmBooya!
I raise you:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/lists/unemployment-states/hawaii.html?state=play
Anyways, these threads never really go anywhere.
|
On May 30 2013 10:46 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:24 Chocolate wrote:On May 30 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:On May 30 2013 09:22 Chocolate wrote:On May 30 2013 09:04 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:On May 30 2013 08:45 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 08:41 aksfjh wrote:On May 30 2013 08:26 Sermokala wrote:
He address's that there is a glut in the workforce and with the same post dismiss's any solution at all to deal with said workforce glut.
No one can look at the current recovery and say that its a good situation. Other countries are already waging a tariff war on us. There will always be people who are not competitive, selling our poor into bread lines and a welfare lifestyle on the alter of free trade is no reasonable way to run a country. Free trade only works when it goes both ways, and it is definitely not going both ways. So either give our poor jobs or reign in china's anti-free trade policies but for fucks sake stop living in a fantasy world where a free trade ideology is infallible. You solve the glut that we have now with a fiscal and monetary shock that entices businesses to invest in personnel. We as a nation wonder why we have unemployment problems and then we look and see we pay people to be unemployed. It's pretty disingenuous to suggest that people who are unemployed are so because they can collect unemployment insurance or something similar. It's specious to assert that people who collect UI are doing so in an attempt to make easy money, just as it's specious to claim that women have children for the sake of maternity leave. I made no such argument, my only argument is the fact that if you make more money by not working, you're not going to seek a job in the first place. Similarly, if unemployment pays you 35,000$, most people will not take a job that makes less than 50-60k since they value their leisure/other time/activities greater than that 25k. This does add to unemployment problems. If you could address my argument without strawmanning I would appreciate it. Are you making the argument that paying people to be unemployed, does not cause unemployment? Unemployment is generally only available for about 6 months after being laid off and generally pays a percentage of previous income (which is capped at different amount at different places). I have a hard time believing anybody could make more than 30k per year on unemployment. Maybe services like medicaid, tanf, section 8, etc. with unemployment could add up to more than 30k, but I'm sure that in most cases they don't. Also, you have to realize that cutting welfare would lead to huge problems. Now we have a small number of educated people with job training not receiving adequate funds to survive- that's bad. We'd also have a very large number of uneducated, unemployable people receiving no assistance either. They could either die, get a job, or turn to crime. None of them will want to die and there wouldn't be enough jobs for all of them, but I'd bet that crime would go way, way up. The problem is balancing welfare- it has to be able to provide, but it can't provide too much. I know conservatives love to target welfare but it really isn't the problem. Oh c'mon. Are you really making the argument that we're providing welfare to prevent people from becoming criminals? You're really holding us hostage to that choice from the poor? Not entirely, welfare is a necessary component of a just society. Some abuse it and that needs to be shored up, but there would be a lot of consequences if it were eliminated. We'd be introducing to society a lower class that is poorer than before and one which would be unable to live at the meager standards which they were afforded before. We have lax gun laws, a non-homogeneous society than can promote us-vs-them culture, and also a culture which glorifies violence. If we suddenly pissed off all the poor people I'm sure you know what would happen. It's not a hostage situation, it's simply the current state of affairs that is largely a result of the culture of the US. Obviously the solution is to break the cycle of poverty by providing high quality education to the children of the poor, but because of the tendency of the wealthy to keep their kids from interacting with those of the poor and limited resources for schools that are struggling (which, shockingly, often have the poorest students) that isn't happening. Welfare creates dependency and servitude. It does not raise people out of poverty, but makes poverty comfortable. Do you provide for the poor by handing them a fish, or teaching them how to fish? I think I'm with Booker T. Washington and Benjamin Franklin on this issue. Also, how is it just to steal the just acquisition of property from one person, and give it to another? Would it be just if I came up to you stole your wallet and then donated the proceeds to charity? It is the same scenario. An injustice cannot provide for justice. Show nested quote +I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor[5] (29 November 1766). -- Benjamin Franklin
I think you hold some delusions about markets in general. First of all, you use a proverb which doesn't correlate. Explain why teaching a man to fish is useful when there aren't any fish to be had. Second, you talk about economic justice... the fuck are you smoking and may I have some?
Also thanks for quoting the old BF, whose relevance in this discussion rests solely in the fact that his face is on our currency.
|
On May 30 2013 12:01 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 11:49 aksfjh wrote:I remember when I attempted to debate libertarians seriously. Bottom line, if somebody thinks taxation is theft by force, you're not likely going to change their ideas on anything, even simple things, like the best brand of ketchup. I guess it just makes you appreciate posters like Jonny in the long run. Speaking of which, On May 30 2013 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 30 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:
Funny, the state with the highest unemployment benefits (Mass.) has an unemployment rate at least 0.5 pp lower than the national average. Somebody should tell those suckers that their free time is more valuable and they should act more selfishly. Yeah, but wages in MA are highest in the nation (statewide average, excluding DC) so the opportunity cost of not working is higher as well Opportunity costs in Arizona are even higher, getting less than 1/3 of the average pay in benefits. They have an unemployment rate that's greater than 0.5 pp over the national average. Not that I seriously think there's any significant correlation here, I just think they're cool stats. I'm pretty hardcore libertarian and I do not think taxation is theft by force, I think wasteful spending of tax payer dollars is theft.
I agree with this as well. Although I don't use the word "theft", its a fact that taxes are a taking by force. So any time you think the government should be spending money on one of your pet projects, please pause for a moment to remember how the government acquired that money. I would like to live in a state with low taxes, where the government does 2 things: keeps me safe, and leaves me alone.
|
On May 30 2013 12:01 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 11:49 aksfjh wrote:I remember when I attempted to debate libertarians seriously. Bottom line, if somebody thinks taxation is theft by force, you're not likely going to change their ideas on anything, even simple things, like the best brand of ketchup. I guess it just makes you appreciate posters like Jonny in the long run. Speaking of which, On May 30 2013 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 30 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:
Funny, the state with the highest unemployment benefits (Mass.) has an unemployment rate at least 0.5 pp lower than the national average. Somebody should tell those suckers that their free time is more valuable and they should act more selfishly. Yeah, but wages in MA are highest in the nation (statewide average, excluding DC) so the opportunity cost of not working is higher as well Opportunity costs in Arizona are even higher, getting less than 1/3 of the average pay in benefits. They have an unemployment rate that's greater than 0.5 pp over the national average. Not that I seriously think there's any significant correlation here, I just think they're cool stats. I'm pretty hardcore libertarian and I do not think taxation is theft by force, I think wasteful spending of tax payer dollars is theft.
I've grown to enjoy your posts to a great degree. You're pretty solid in the gun control topic, but I seem to remember some posts that have made my eyes roll in a general politics thread. The libertarians I get really fed up are the ones that run around flailing their dogma into every corner, marked by phrases like "educate yourself." Argument fallacy warmongers, who are quick to throw out phrases like "strawman" and "ad hominem" to discredit any valid point made against their own, "logically superior" belief structure.
|
On May 30 2013 12:12 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 11:24 aksfjh wrote:On May 30 2013 10:42 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2013 10:15 coverpunch wrote:On May 30 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:
Funny, the state with the highest unemployment benefits (Mass.) has an unemployment rate at least 0.5 pp lower than the national average. Somebody should tell those suckers that their free time is more valuable and they should act more selfishly. But you realize you might be pointing the causation arrow in the wrong direction, right? Massachusetts might have the highest unemployment benefits because they have the lowest unemployment and the state can afford to be generous. My argument is an axiomatic one. He is going to have to show through reason and logic where I've made a mistake. It is the same thing with minimum wage laws, or price controls when it comes to rent. These are economic laws. Never mind the fact he is wrong and Mass. does not have the highest unemployment bene's (that would be Hawaii). There are a lot of factors that play into unemployment and simply going - X state has this bene's and X unemployment rate is entirely farcical. How you can exclude the thousands of other factors, or simply isolate one factor is quite frankly impossible. We know by logic that unemployment benefits sustains unemployment levels until such time as it runs out (if you haven't noticed, most people on unemployment bene's don't start looking for a job until a few weeks out from when UI ends), just as minimum wage laws create unemployment by raising wage rates above market levels. Now you can argue whether that is good or bad, but the fact is these things do cause and sustain unemployment. Arguing the opposite...well, is like arguing gravity does not exist. Maximum Weekly Unemployment Benefits for 2013
Alabama - $265
Alaska - $441
Arizona - $240
Arkansas - $457
California - $450
Colorado - $454
Connecticut - $555
Delaware - $330
District of Columbia - $405
Florida - $275
Georgia - $330
Hawaii - $560
Idaho - $343
Illinois - $385
Indiana - $390
Iowa - $459
Kansas - $420
Kentucky - $415
Louisiana - $258
Maine - $372
Maryland - $410
Massachusetts - $653
Michigan - $362
Minnesota - $585
Mississippi - $235
Missouri - $320
Montana - $446
Nebraska - $348
Nevada - $398
New Hampshire - $427
New Jersey - $600
New Mexico - $455
New York - $405
North Carolina - $535, $350, effective 7/1/13
North Dakota - $470
Ohio - $524
Oklahoma - $368
Oregon - $507
Pennsylvania - $573
Puerto Rico - $133
Rhode Island - $566
South Carolina - $326
South Dakota - $295
Tennessee - $275
Texas - $426
Utah - $451
Vermont - $425
Virginia - $378
Virgin Islands - $454
Washington - $604
West Virginia - $424
Wisconsin - $363
Wyoming - $387 http://jobsearch.about.com/od/unemployment/a/weekly-unemployment-benefits.htmBooya! I raise you: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/lists/unemployment-states/hawaii.html?state=playAnyways, these threads never really go anywhere.
Old info is old. Mine is 2013 data!
|
On May 30 2013 12:21 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 12:01 kmillz wrote:On May 30 2013 11:49 aksfjh wrote:I remember when I attempted to debate libertarians seriously. Bottom line, if somebody thinks taxation is theft by force, you're not likely going to change their ideas on anything, even simple things, like the best brand of ketchup. I guess it just makes you appreciate posters like Jonny in the long run. Speaking of which, On May 30 2013 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 30 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:
Funny, the state with the highest unemployment benefits (Mass.) has an unemployment rate at least 0.5 pp lower than the national average. Somebody should tell those suckers that their free time is more valuable and they should act more selfishly. Yeah, but wages in MA are highest in the nation (statewide average, excluding DC) so the opportunity cost of not working is higher as well Opportunity costs in Arizona are even higher, getting less than 1/3 of the average pay in benefits. They have an unemployment rate that's greater than 0.5 pp over the national average. Not that I seriously think there's any significant correlation here, I just think they're cool stats. I'm pretty hardcore libertarian and I do not think taxation is theft by force, I think wasteful spending of tax payer dollars is theft. I've grown to enjoy your posts to a great degree. You're pretty solid in the gun control topic, but I seem to remember some posts that have made my eyes roll in a general politics thread. The libertarians I get really fed up are the ones that run around flailing their dogma into every corner, marked by phrases like "educate yourself." Argument fallacy warmongers, who are quick to throw out phrases like "strawman" and "ad hominem" to discredit any valid point made against their own, "logically superior" belief structure.
I don't like anyone who uses 'educate yourself' in an argument/debate. It completely invalidates the entire point to dialogue. Educating yourself is very important, but that's for a time and place away from the debate podium.
Dogma...not so bad when it is spent defending truth and righteousness, no? I'm sure you hold dogmatic beliefs yourself (e.g. Fascism is always wrong/bad - an area with which I'd whole-heartedly agree).
Well, libertarianism is founded both on very rigorous structures of logic and reason, as well as very emotional/sentimental populism. For instance, take Lockean non-proviso homesteading and put that up against the property strictures of other ideologies. I'd also posit that libertarian writing and philosophy is probably the most well-written, verbose, and backed up there is going all the way back to Lao-Tzu. The world would be such a better place if Marx/Hegel never existed and people like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner took his place. At least Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was partially right!
Old info is old. Mine is 2013 data!
Fair enough, but the article I linked to took into account those actually receiving benefits, not what was their potential maximum (which again based off income at time of resignation/firing).
|
United States41951 Posts
On May 30 2013 08:21 Wegandi wrote:
Ak, why would anyone continue to invest in a venture where the more money you make, the more tax is levied upon you. It simply is not worth their labor and time for such a modest gain
I'd much rather be a millionaire than not, even if I paid a higher proportion of my income than I do now. If you proposed a plan that would make me one and I thought it'd work I'd absolutely think it was worth my labour and time. I think 99.99999% of people would rather be obscenely wealthy before tax and just extraordinarily wealthy after tax than pay no tax at all on an average income. You'd have to be an anti-tax ideologue not to.
|
On May 30 2013 12:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 08:21 Wegandi wrote:
Ak, why would anyone continue to invest in a venture where the more money you make, the more tax is levied upon you. It simply is not worth their labor and time for such a modest gain I'd much rather be a millionaire than not, even if I paid a higher proportion of my income than I do now. If you proposed a plan that would make me one and I thought it'd work I'd absolutely think it was worth my labour and time. I think 99.99999% of people would rather be obscenely wealthy before tax and just extraordinarily wealthy after tax than pay no tax at all on an average income. You'd have to be an anti-tax ideologue not to.
Depends on the lifestyle. A lot of obscenely rich people work tremendous hours and are under a lot of stress. Would you rather make 95,000$ a year working a relatively easy 40 hour a week job, or make 1,000,000$ working 85+ hours in a very high stress job with a lot of risk?
Again, you miss out on the fact that entrepreneurs undertake risk, and through such risk, uncertainty. If we were all guaranteed to make millions then it wouldn't matter, but the fact is life is amazingly unpredictable. That is why entrepreneurs weigh the risks vs reward. A 70% tax on gross income over 300,000 will dis-incentivize growth and competition. The big firms will love it because it hurts their competition more than it does them. This is why the 'Progressive Era' led to further monopolization and less-competitive amongst the industries. Progressives just do not understand economics at all, and worked to further solidify companies like Standard Oil (The New-Leftist historian Gabriel Kolko did amazing scholarship on this subject).
|
United States41951 Posts
And there's absolutely no middle way or alternative where two guys can go into business together and both make 500k for 42 hour weeks? Because what you've done here is say that entrepreneurship is so incredibly painful for the people involved that only a low tax rate which, after the universal costs of living which everyone has to pay pretty much evenly are deducted, actually leaves them with a higher proportion of their take home income as surplus than people struggling to make rent can compensate them for that misery. Sure, if that were true then to make our economy work we'd need to treat them with soft gloves and work extra hard to make their horrible lives wonderful for the common good. But it's not true. Not even a little. You can tell because in countries which do have high progressive tax rates people still take chances, make investments, start businesses etc.
My heart does not bleed for the plight of the super rich. Nor does the argument that the economy will grind to a halt due to a lack of ambitious economic activity if you punish it too much (when too much is any punishment at all) have any basis in reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
