|
On February 02 2011 00:24 insaneMicro wrote:
Medical treatment can be pretty expensive, so atleast for health insurance I'd really rather pay taxes than buckle up 100k+ in cash for life saving surgery should I ever need it. As for social security, I think I'm responsible enough to handle my own finances, so that'd be nice.
Medical treatment can be expensive, but medical insurance isn't more or less than paying for medical taxes. (Although it is a complicated market and probably needs a different model to be properly run)
So basicly you think the system called democracy is a voilent system that uses brute force.
I know a quote from this guy, that you might known, he is on the 2 dollar bill.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
If you think this is unfair feel free to suggest another system
Government is a violent system that uses brute force, they throw you in jail/take your stuff if you don't do what they say and if they can't force you to give up yourstuff/go to jail without killing you, they will)
Democracy is a slightly better form of Government in that you need 51% of the people to abuse the opther 49% but there is a BETTER system than democracy.
It's called a democratic republic/constitutional democracy... ie a Democracy where the 51% Can't take the rights of the 49%. You have checks and balances so that just because Party A wins (or Parties A, C,+D form a government for you Parlimentarians) they can't have everyone in Party B executed (like you could in a true democracy..like Athens:Socrates)
The important thing there is Limited government, the government needs to be set up in such a way that it can't do too much.
Jefferson was right Democracy, true democracy, is a terrible form of government... and there ARE better options. (although they are similar to a true democracy they are not true/pure democracies)
|
On February 02 2011 00:20 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:12 betaV1.25 wrote:So basicly you think the system called democracy is a voilent system that uses brute force. I know a quote from this guy, that you might known, he is on the 2 dollar bill. “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” If you think this is unfair feel free to suggest another system  When you throw people and jail and then kill them if they resist, that is brute force. Not sure how you could possibly disagree.
Did some stuff happen in the states that i am unaware of? Could you please link me a few of your sources that people got killed by the government because they didnt pay taxes.
Allso i see that you failed to suggest a better system than the one your founding fathers tought would be the best for the US.
At this point i feel like you are just waving your arms and trying to shout very loud but not actually managing to bring forward valid arguments.
|
On February 02 2011 00:29 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:19 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:08 mcc wrote:On February 01 2011 23:56 Treemonkeys wrote:
I'You don't understand how the government is using brute force? Do you know what voluntary means? Do you know what involuntary means? Please explain to me how X number of people I have never meant, choosing to force me into paying for something is fair, yet if one person takes from me it is a crime? Explain the logic of your morality, where it is fair to be robbed by a mob. I would like to point out that unless you live outside of society there is no way to implement stable really voluntary system, so complaining that government is baaad without showing workable alternative system is kind of pointless. Government in reasonable countries does not actually use force to extract taxes, because it does not have to, because its authority is based on societal pressure. Yes there is a theoretical threat of force, but the same threat is in any human society even without any government. There is no way to avoid de facto rule of majority, and them forcing you to do stuff other than rule of minority which is not really a better solution, and is not stable in the longterm anyway. Modern governments are pretty decent solutions based on accepting this unpleasant fact of human condition. Really? How do you know this? I could again say the same way you know things you write as you also provide NOTHING in the way of proof. As I said earlier any argument that is available would not be enough for you. Some of it is experience, some of it is historical precedent, others are game theory and biology, they all somewhat point to the conclusion I made.
Why should the burden of proof remain with the one who does not wish to use violence?
|
On February 02 2011 00:30 betaV1.25 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:20 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:12 betaV1.25 wrote:So basicly you think the system called democracy is a voilent system that uses brute force. I know a quote from this guy, that you might known, he is on the 2 dollar bill. “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” If you think this is unfair feel free to suggest another system When you throw people and jail and then kill them if they resist, that is brute force. Not sure how you could possibly disagree. Did some stuff happen in the states that i am unaware of? Could you please link me a few of your sources that people got killed by the government because they didnt pay taxes. Allso i see that you failed to suggest a better system than the one your founding fathers tought would be the best for the US. At this point i feel like you are just waving your arms and trying to shout very loud but not actually managing to bring forward valid arguments.
If you don't pay your taxes, they will take you to jail.
If you resist going to jail, they will kill you.
This is brute force.
The whole OP is talking about "what if taxes were voluntary", and you came here to argue that force isn't involved?
I suggested a better system.
|
On February 02 2011 00:25 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:24 insaneMicro wrote:
Medical treatment can be pretty expensive, so atleast for health insurance I'd really rather pay taxes than buckle up 100k+ in cash for life saving surgery should I ever need it. As for social security, I think I'm responsible enough to handle my own finances, so that'd be nice. Without government, it would be affordable.
You are joking right, I don't ask you for any conclusive proof on your other statements, but this one is so false, that I would at least like to see some data or math to support it. Even if you eliminated all taxes it would not increase income in any meaningful way towards this goal, so the only way it could happen would be that cost of those treatments would go waaaay down for some reason. So how would elimination of the government make the cost go down so much.
|
On February 02 2011 00:18 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:04 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 01 2011 23:44 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 01 2011 23:36 Electric.Jesus wrote:
To answer the OPs question. If taxes are voluntary, no on will pay. That is what psychology and experimental economy tells us (you can read hundreds of papers that investigate human behavior in public goods games and they pretty much tell the same story). It is quite easy to see why people will not like to pay taxes if it is voluntary for at least three reasons:
1. It is economically rational to "defect", that is not to pay and hope that others will do.
2. You get to see little benefit from your individual payment, that is, the contigency between effort and reward is low. This redcues individual motivation to pay taxes.
3. You risk being the sucker that pays for the free-riders. The sucker-effect is known to reduce individual motivation to contribute to the group.
There are probably more reasons why a voluntary tax system does not work. The nly way that they reliably work is with social contro and punishment for defectors which is why the established systems seem to work to some degree. This isn't always true. People do pay for services, people do pay for charities. What if instead of paying taxes to fund roads and traffic police, you could choose to pay, but if you don't pay, you can't use the roads? Of course people would pay. Hm, charitiy is different ebcause it is based on altruism. I thin the OP was about paying for a public good that everyone including the payer benefits from. With regards to your second statement, this is not uncommon. Take, for example, tolls for roads, bridges and tunnels. I think, it basically come down to how yout want to finance public goods. Financing them via taxes means the rich get to pay more, tolls/fees mean those who use them pay more. It is a matter of how you define just distribution of the costs. ...and people think this isn't fair, or they just want something for free? Basically all usual arguments of morality and fairness get turned around ass backwards when applied to government, always backed up with hyperbolic arguments based on "it won't work". What won't work? Humanity will become extinct? Humanity is hilariously stupid when you look at it from an outside perspective. So many lines drawn on the world, with each area having a government massing up arms so it can defend itself from other governments, all at the common person's expense. Too fearful and controlled to realize the truth, that if they could only disarm all of the governments they would have so much less to defend themselves from. So many wasted resources with such a short lifetime. Government truly is the only reason we need government. It supports it's own existence through violence and fear mongering.
really strange view on these topics. maybe tea party influenced you a bit?
if there is no government then we have anarchy. meaning survival of the fittest. have fun with that...
even if there would be no borders you NEED a government which ENFORCES laws!
some basic thinking would have told you the same... unless you like rioting mobs on the streets and millions of innocent victims
If you don't pay your taxes, they will take you to jail.
If you resist going to jail, they will kill you.
This is brute force.
wtf....
dunno how it is in the USA but in europe noone will be killed if they you refuse to go to jail. you will be brought there via police and if you refuse to (i suppose with a gun) then it is your fault for getting killed...
|
On February 02 2011 00:31 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:29 mcc wrote:On February 02 2011 00:19 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:08 mcc wrote:On February 01 2011 23:56 Treemonkeys wrote:
I'You don't understand how the government is using brute force? Do you know what voluntary means? Do you know what involuntary means? Please explain to me how X number of people I have never meant, choosing to force me into paying for something is fair, yet if one person takes from me it is a crime? Explain the logic of your morality, where it is fair to be robbed by a mob. I would like to point out that unless you live outside of society there is no way to implement stable really voluntary system, so complaining that government is baaad without showing workable alternative system is kind of pointless. Government in reasonable countries does not actually use force to extract taxes, because it does not have to, because its authority is based on societal pressure. Yes there is a theoretical threat of force, but the same threat is in any human society even without any government. There is no way to avoid de facto rule of majority, and them forcing you to do stuff other than rule of minority which is not really a better solution, and is not stable in the longterm anyway. Modern governments are pretty decent solutions based on accepting this unpleasant fact of human condition. Really? How do you know this? I could again say the same way you know things you write as you also provide NOTHING in the way of proof. As I said earlier any argument that is available would not be enough for you. Some of it is experience, some of it is historical precedent, others are game theory and biology, they all somewhat point to the conclusion I made. Why should the burden of proof remain with the one who does not wish to use violence?
Because that is not how burden of proof is determined ? Burden of proof lies in general on the person stating "positive" statement. Which in this case we both are. In most practical instances burden of proof lies on someone proposing something new, untested, ... which in this case is mostly you.
|
Well, I don't expect to get any benefit from social security anyways so given the choice I wouldn't pay for it. However, I don't think you can make taxes voluntary. To support the SS system for example the government needs to collect money from a wide range of taxpayers. Given the option people that make the most would not join SS and people that make the least would. The system would no longer be sustainable in this situation(granted it is not sustainable now but thats another issue).
|
On February 02 2011 00:35 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:18 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:04 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 01 2011 23:44 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 01 2011 23:36 Electric.Jesus wrote:
To answer the OPs question. If taxes are voluntary, no on will pay. That is what psychology and experimental economy tells us (you can read hundreds of papers that investigate human behavior in public goods games and they pretty much tell the same story). It is quite easy to see why people will not like to pay taxes if it is voluntary for at least three reasons:
1. It is economically rational to "defect", that is not to pay and hope that others will do.
2. You get to see little benefit from your individual payment, that is, the contigency between effort and reward is low. This redcues individual motivation to pay taxes.
3. You risk being the sucker that pays for the free-riders. The sucker-effect is known to reduce individual motivation to contribute to the group.
There are probably more reasons why a voluntary tax system does not work. The nly way that they reliably work is with social contro and punishment for defectors which is why the established systems seem to work to some degree. This isn't always true. People do pay for services, people do pay for charities. What if instead of paying taxes to fund roads and traffic police, you could choose to pay, but if you don't pay, you can't use the roads? Of course people would pay. Hm, charitiy is different ebcause it is based on altruism. I thin the OP was about paying for a public good that everyone including the payer benefits from. With regards to your second statement, this is not uncommon. Take, for example, tolls for roads, bridges and tunnels. I think, it basically come down to how yout want to finance public goods. Financing them via taxes means the rich get to pay more, tolls/fees mean those who use them pay more. It is a matter of how you define just distribution of the costs. ...and people think this isn't fair, or they just want something for free? Basically all usual arguments of morality and fairness get turned around ass backwards when applied to government, always backed up with hyperbolic arguments based on "it won't work". What won't work? Humanity will become extinct? Humanity is hilariously stupid when you look at it from an outside perspective. So many lines drawn on the world, with each area having a government massing up arms so it can defend itself from other governments, all at the common person's expense. Too fearful and controlled to realize the truth, that if they could only disarm all of the governments they would have so much less to defend themselves from. So many wasted resources with such a short lifetime. Government truly is the only reason we need government. It supports it's own existence through violence and fear mongering. really strange view on these topics. maybe tea party influenced you a bit? if there is no government then we have anarchy. meaning survival of the fittest. have fun with that... even if there would be no borders you NEED a government which ENFORCES laws! some basic thinking would have told you the same... unless you like rioting mobs on the streets and millions of innocent victims
Please don't associate me with those jokers, all they care about is having a republican in control.
Yes, if there is no government, we have anarchy. Being that anarchy is "a society without government", you really hit the nail with that one, good job.
Now as far as survival of the fittest, you think this is not already the case? You think a social construct can reverse the very nature of nature itself?
No, of course not. We still have survival of the fittest, and the fittest live in huge mansions off the common persons dime, and have underground bunkers to flee to when the shit hit's the fan.
Now if you want to talk about dead innocents? Add up every death for nearly every war and get back to me, because they were nearly all government vs. government.
Or you could just add up the number of people the US government alone has killed, which is pretty huge.
But you would rather stick with your hyperbolic argument of "rioting mobs killing millions of innocents" instead of the factual death toll of history and government.
|
On February 02 2011 00:40 SirazTV wrote:
Well, I don't expect to get any benefit from social security anyways so given the choice I wouldn't pay for it. However, I don't think you can make taxes voluntary. To support the SS system for example the government needs to collect money from a wide range of taxpayers. Given the option people that make the most would not join SS and people that make the least would. The system would no longer be sustainable in this situation(granted it is not sustainable now but thats another issue).
Not really, SS is not redistributionist... the more you put in, the more you get out (roughly)
The problem is Stupid people would not put into SS AND they would not put into any other form of retirement.
And as for those killed in wars... well that can be blamed on anarchy as a concept, because that is the system of interaction between government (there is no Government over other governments)
However, you don't need wars to show that governments kill people who should not be killed (that is better than "innocents" because governments get to decide who is innocent a lot)... including democratic governments, and even limited ones.
The key is the more limited government causes less damage to people.
|
On February 02 2011 00:38 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:31 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:29 mcc wrote:On February 02 2011 00:19 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:08 mcc wrote:On February 01 2011 23:56 Treemonkeys wrote:
I'You don't understand how the government is using brute force? Do you know what voluntary means? Do you know what involuntary means? Please explain to me how X number of people I have never meant, choosing to force me into paying for something is fair, yet if one person takes from me it is a crime? Explain the logic of your morality, where it is fair to be robbed by a mob. I would like to point out that unless you live outside of society there is no way to implement stable really voluntary system, so complaining that government is baaad without showing workable alternative system is kind of pointless. Government in reasonable countries does not actually use force to extract taxes, because it does not have to, because its authority is based on societal pressure. Yes there is a theoretical threat of force, but the same threat is in any human society even without any government. There is no way to avoid de facto rule of majority, and them forcing you to do stuff other than rule of minority which is not really a better solution, and is not stable in the longterm anyway. Modern governments are pretty decent solutions based on accepting this unpleasant fact of human condition. Really? How do you know this? I could again say the same way you know things you write as you also provide NOTHING in the way of proof. As I said earlier any argument that is available would not be enough for you. Some of it is experience, some of it is historical precedent, others are game theory and biology, they all somewhat point to the conclusion I made. Why should the burden of proof remain with the one who does not wish to use violence? Because that is not how burden of proof is determined ? Burden of proof lies in general on the person stating "positive" statement. Which in this case we both are. In most practical instances burden of proof lies on someone proposing something new, untested, ... which in this case is mostly you.
No, we are not both saying a positive statement.
You are saying we need government, I am saying we don't. You are the one with the "positive" (action required) statement.
|
On February 02 2011 00:35 fleeze wrote:
wtf....
dunno how it is in the USA but in europe noone will be killed if they you refuse to go to jail. you will be brought there via police and if you refuse to (i suppose with a gun) then it is your fault for getting killed...
WTF indeed, this isn't brute force?????
|
Wow Where to begin.
Is our system of government flawed? Yes it is. Is it perfect? no it isn't. Is it the best human construct so far on the planet in the history of mankind? Probably. We have more freedom here then in any society on earth. To have these freedoms, you have to have laws and social structures in place that are agreed upon by the citizens of the nation. In order to pay for the upkeep and enforcement you need taxes. And yes, these laws and structures do, in their most base form and as a last recourse, need a threat of violence to support them.
Social security isn't about yourself. It is about society as a whole. The reason SS and private pensions were started wasn't to provide a substantial retirement benefit actually. It was started as a means for companies to be able to seperate people who were not being efficient at their jobs anymore. Before SS, peopel would basically work until they died, or be supported by their children. This created a logjam of employees at the top of a company with no way to move up. Pensions allowed a way for a company to remove this logjam while rewarding workers who had had a long and productive career with the company. SS took that to another level, because the private companies couldn't fund their pension benefits during the great depression, and the government could.
SS is paid out on the scale, thus people who need it the most (ie make the least amount of money) get the most benefit. This works in a society that places worth on their jobs and is full of people who want to be the best they can be. And, contrary to what the media likes to protray about Americans, this is probably about 95% of us. The other 5% want to freeload, and there is nothing that can be done about them except catch them and then punish them. The ideas of SS and medicare are not the issues, but how they are being run does need refinement. I think the whole welfare plan needs to be overhauled.
You have to remember that most people are at the poverty wall. It is easy to sit in an ivory tower and say well I am going to save for my retirement with my cushy job I got after college, but you have to think about everyone, the hard working people who are the brightest people in the world that work hard but don't make a ton of money. Those are the people that SS were made for.
Lastly, while it is a bit silly to say that the government is holding s gun to your head, they really are, but that gun is pointed at your head because the society as a whole voted it to be there. There can be no society without a base threat of violence. The only way to fight violence is with violence. Anarchy will never work, as the strong will just prey upon the weak...which I guess could be argued as okay, as that is how animals work, but the goal of a civilized society is to try to rise above the base animal instincts inside all of us.
|
This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out.
|
On February 02 2011 00:48 pugowar wrote:
Lastly, while it is a bit silly to say that the government is holding s gun to your head, they really are, but that gun is pointed at your head because the society as a whole voted it to be there. There can be no society without a base threat of violence. The only way to fight violence is with violence. Anarchy will never work, as the strong will just prey upon the weak...which I guess could be argued as okay, as that is how animlas work, but the goal of a civilized society is to try to rise above the base animal instincts inside all of us.
So I should be afraid of anarchy because the strong will prey upon the weak...as I have a gun pointed at my head, forcing me to do things. They strong already prey upon the weak, and always will, and I am one of the weak.
There is nothing about using violence that is rising above the animals. We are still just animals, killing each other to get what we want.
|
On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote:
This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out.
So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair.
|
On February 02 2011 00:44 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:35 fleeze wrote:On February 02 2011 00:18 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:04 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 01 2011 23:44 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 01 2011 23:36 Electric.Jesus wrote:
To answer the OPs question. If taxes are voluntary, no on will pay. That is what psychology and experimental economy tells us (you can read hundreds of papers that investigate human behavior in public goods games and they pretty much tell the same story). It is quite easy to see why people will not like to pay taxes if it is voluntary for at least three reasons:
1. It is economically rational to "defect", that is not to pay and hope that others will do.
2. You get to see little benefit from your individual payment, that is, the contigency between effort and reward is low. This redcues individual motivation to pay taxes.
3. You risk being the sucker that pays for the free-riders. The sucker-effect is known to reduce individual motivation to contribute to the group.
There are probably more reasons why a voluntary tax system does not work. The nly way that they reliably work is with social contro and punishment for defectors which is why the established systems seem to work to some degree. This isn't always true. People do pay for services, people do pay for charities. What if instead of paying taxes to fund roads and traffic police, you could choose to pay, but if you don't pay, you can't use the roads? Of course people would pay. Hm, charitiy is different ebcause it is based on altruism. I thin the OP was about paying for a public good that everyone including the payer benefits from. With regards to your second statement, this is not uncommon. Take, for example, tolls for roads, bridges and tunnels. I think, it basically come down to how yout want to finance public goods. Financing them via taxes means the rich get to pay more, tolls/fees mean those who use them pay more. It is a matter of how you define just distribution of the costs. ...and people think this isn't fair, or they just want something for free? Basically all usual arguments of morality and fairness get turned around ass backwards when applied to government, always backed up with hyperbolic arguments based on "it won't work". What won't work? Humanity will become extinct? Humanity is hilariously stupid when you look at it from an outside perspective. So many lines drawn on the world, with each area having a government massing up arms so it can defend itself from other governments, all at the common person's expense. Too fearful and controlled to realize the truth, that if they could only disarm all of the governments they would have so much less to defend themselves from. So many wasted resources with such a short lifetime. Government truly is the only reason we need government. It supports it's own existence through violence and fear mongering. really strange view on these topics. maybe tea party influenced you a bit? if there is no government then we have anarchy. meaning survival of the fittest. have fun with that... even if there would be no borders you NEED a government which ENFORCES laws! some basic thinking would have told you the same... unless you like rioting mobs on the streets and millions of innocent victims Please don't associate me with those jokers, all they care about is having a republican in control. Yes, if there is no government, we have anarchy. Being that anarchy is "a society without government", you really hit the nail with that one, good job. Now as far as survival of the fittest, you think this is not already the case? You think a social construct can reverse the very nature of nature itself? No, of course not. We still have survival of the fittest, and the fittest live in huge mansions off the common persons dime, and have underground bunkers to flee to when the shit hit's the fan. Now if you want to talk about dead innocents? Add up every death for nearly every war and get back to me, because they were nearly all government vs. government. Or you could just add up the number of people the US government alone has killed, which is pretty huge. But you would rather stick with your hyperbolic argument of "rioting mobs killing millions of innocents" instead of the factual death toll of history and government.
you fail to understand survival of the fittest in an anarchic environment.
and you fail to understand how people would react especially in a globalized world with weapons of mass destruction at hand.
and your comparisons suck tbh. while i agree that we have some form of survival of the fittest you just suppose to exchange the government with the guy who has most weapons.
|
SS is the biggest pyramid scheme in history, why the hell would anyone voluntarily put a dime in that shit hole is beyond me and as far as walfare and stuff like it goes, it's such a joke, I've been homeless and given the run around on all the reasons why I don't qualify for it, at a time when my wife is working for the county in the same office that approves people for such programs, yet my neighbor was a crack dealer driving an escalade while on walfare/foodstamps/house assistance. The whole system is flawed and needs to be completely redesigned or just removed.
I pay for private insurance, so fuck medicare too.
|
On February 02 2011 00:48 pugowar wrote:
Wow Where to begin.
Is our system of government flawed? Yes it is. Is it perfect? no it isn't. Is it the best human construct so far on the planet in the history of mankind? Probably. We have more freedom here then in any society on earth. To have thse freedoms, you have to have laws and social structures in place that are agreed apon by the citizens of the nation. In order to pay for the upkeep and enforcement you need taxes. And yes, these laws and structures do, in their most base form and as a last recourse, need a threat of violence to support them.
Social security isn't about yourself. It is about society as a whole. The reason SS and private pensions were started wasn't to provide a substantial retirement benefit actually. It was started as a means for companies to be able to seperate people who were not being efficient at their jobs anymore. Before SS, peopel would basically work until they died, or be supported by their children. This created a logjam of employees at the top of a company with no way to move up. Pensions allowed a way for a company to remove this logjam while rewarding workers who had had a long and productive career with the company. SS took that to another level, because the private companies couldn't fund their pension benefits during the great depression, and the government could. SS is paid out on the scale, thus people who need it the most (ie make the least amount of money) get the most beneift. This works in a society that places worth on their jobs and is full of people who want to be the best they can be. And, contrary to what the media likes to protray about Americans, this is probably about 95% of us. The other 5% want to freeload, and there is nothing that can be done about them except catch them and then punish them. The ideas of SS and medicare are not the issues, but how they are being run does need refinement. I think the whole welfare plan needs to be overhauled.
You have to remember that most people are at the poverty wall. It is easy to sit in an ivory tower and say well I am going to save for my retirement with my cushy job I got after college, but you have to think about everyone, the hard working people who are the brightest people in the owlrd that work hard but don't make a ton of money. Those are the people that SS were made for.
Lastly, while it is a bit silly to say that the government is holding s gun to your head, they really are, but that gun is pointed at your head because the society as a whole voted it to be there. There can be no society without a base threat of violence. The only way to fight violence is with violence. Anarchy will never work, as the strong will just prey upon the weak...which I guess could be argued as okay, as that is how animlas work, but the goal of a civilized society is to try to rise above the base animal instincts inside all of us.
SS and private pensions are 2 totally different things.
SS are across the whole US
Private Pensions/retirement accounts are only at one company.
Companies are perfectly able to fire someone who is not good at their job any more. (unless the government stops them, or the company is structured badly)
And people are perfectly able to save money for later in their life (unless they are very poor ie only making enough for food, or stupid)
Social Security is a bad idea
Private Pensions (of the defined contribution kind) are almost as bad.
|
On February 02 2011 00:53 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:44 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:35 fleeze wrote:On February 02 2011 00:18 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:04 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 01 2011 23:44 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 01 2011 23:36 Electric.Jesus wrote:
To answer the OPs question. If taxes are voluntary, no on will pay. That is what psychology and experimental economy tells us (you can read hundreds of papers that investigate human behavior in public goods games and they pretty much tell the same story). It is quite easy to see why people will not like to pay taxes if it is voluntary for at least three reasons:
1. It is economically rational to "defect", that is not to pay and hope that others will do.
2. You get to see little benefit from your individual payment, that is, the contigency between effort and reward is low. This redcues individual motivation to pay taxes.
3. You risk being the sucker that pays for the free-riders. The sucker-effect is known to reduce individual motivation to contribute to the group.
There are probably more reasons why a voluntary tax system does not work. The nly way that they reliably work is with social contro and punishment for defectors which is why the established systems seem to work to some degree. This isn't always true. People do pay for services, people do pay for charities. What if instead of paying taxes to fund roads and traffic police, you could choose to pay, but if you don't pay, you can't use the roads? Of course people would pay. Hm, charitiy is different ebcause it is based on altruism. I thin the OP was about paying for a public good that everyone including the payer benefits from. With regards to your second statement, this is not uncommon. Take, for example, tolls for roads, bridges and tunnels. I think, it basically come down to how yout want to finance public goods. Financing them via taxes means the rich get to pay more, tolls/fees mean those who use them pay more. It is a matter of how you define just distribution of the costs. ...and people think this isn't fair, or they just want something for free? Basically all usual arguments of morality and fairness get turned around ass backwards when applied to government, always backed up with hyperbolic arguments based on "it won't work". What won't work? Humanity will become extinct? Humanity is hilariously stupid when you look at it from an outside perspective. So many lines drawn on the world, with each area having a government massing up arms so it can defend itself from other governments, all at the common person's expense. Too fearful and controlled to realize the truth, that if they could only disarm all of the governments they would have so much less to defend themselves from. So many wasted resources with such a short lifetime. Government truly is the only reason we need government. It supports it's own existence through violence and fear mongering. really strange view on these topics. maybe tea party influenced you a bit? if there is no government then we have anarchy. meaning survival of the fittest. have fun with that... even if there would be no borders you NEED a government which ENFORCES laws! some basic thinking would have told you the same... unless you like rioting mobs on the streets and millions of innocent victims Please don't associate me with those jokers, all they care about is having a republican in control. Yes, if there is no government, we have anarchy. Being that anarchy is "a society without government", you really hit the nail with that one, good job. Now as far as survival of the fittest, you think this is not already the case? You think a social construct can reverse the very nature of nature itself? No, of course not. We still have survival of the fittest, and the fittest live in huge mansions off the common persons dime, and have underground bunkers to flee to when the shit hit's the fan. Now if you want to talk about dead innocents? Add up every death for nearly every war and get back to me, because they were nearly all government vs. government. Or you could just add up the number of people the US government alone has killed, which is pretty huge. But you would rather stick with your hyperbolic argument of "rioting mobs killing millions of innocents" instead of the factual death toll of history and government. you fail to understand survival of the fittest in an anarchic environment. and you fail to understand how people would react especially in a globalized world with weapons of mass destruction at hand. and your comparisons suck tbh. while i agree that we have some form of survival of the fittest you just suppose to exchange the government with the guy who has most weapons.
I fail, and fail again, and I suck. Great arguments there.
Government is the guy who has the most weapons, or more specifically who wins the fight. You do know how the current US government came into existence? How every government came into existence? They had weapons and they fought there way to power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
