The Victory of Communism!

[jamespowers]

Well, see, that's the thing. Right now I'm paying about 15 percent of my income in taxes, and 15 percent of what I make is a pretty big slice of a pretty small pie when I'm trying to make ends meet. But then I read about all the tax dodges and schemes and shelters that are available to the upper brackets, and I just have to wonder. Who's *really* on welfare?

Well, let's see. The top ten percent of wage earners pay over 60% of the taxes while the middle class and such pay the rest. Ten percent pay 60% of the taxes while 90% pay 40% of the taxes. Hmmmmm..... Sounds fair to me. Way to get those tax cuts millionaires! :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[Dixon Cannon]

And of course...

..you've read all of Ayn Rand's material, so you're opinion is of course OBJECTIVE! (?) I think she mentions you in "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution". Read that have ya?

-dixon cannon

 

[Alighieri]

Whew! That was a lot of reading. Hello all. I am new here and this topic peaked my interest. There were a lot of good points and counter points in the discussion. I would like to reinforce a few that I agree with.

First off, most "social" programs the government runs are ineffecient. It is analogous to buying through a middle man. There is a mark up or in the case of these programs a cost of doing business. Social (In)Security is one of my most dispised programs because the rate of return on the "Old Age Security" portion is abysmal. The Disability portion is decent, though a private insurer can do just as good sometimes better. Most people could take the same amount of money that the government takes from them and their employer and invest in index funds and end up way better than 900-1200 a month at retirement.

Welfare is another pain in the tax payers side. People abuse these systems all the time. I was in Wal-mart a month ago and watched a woman pay for her food items with food stamps and then pay for beer and cigarettes with cash. And I happen to see her (and 4 kids) get into a late model SUV, which looked to be very nice for someone who just paid for their groceries with someone elses money.

And finally the new "social" program that is in the winds is "universal healthcare." Don't be fooled by the talk that this will be great and wont cost much because other countries do it. Other countries have a much higher effective tax rate than we do to help provide for the hugh cost and paperwork involved.

cheers,

Alighieri

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Another well thought out response!!!

Harp, I was getting a little strident and extreme myself. No worries.

Marc, It's a little late to overturn the Louisiana purchase. We could start removing the "temporary" Social Security Act and other failed welfare laws (poverty and corporate) today.

I believe moral individuals "owe" the poor and less fortunate help on an individual or voluntarily corporate (group) basis according to their personal morality.

Forcing charity (welfare supported by taxation) from people is using governent-supported theft to compel moral behavior. It leads to bitterness on one hand and a sense of entitlement on the other.

The freedom to sit down and die has always been present, it is what in the end motivates people to work and to try to improve themselves.

The existence of a meritocracy and equality under the law (and a strong voluntary tendency toward charity) in this country (we aren't Chile) means that people don't have to just "sit down and die". There are helping hands and opportunity available, the best and most efficient are not government run. The unfortunate can work hard to educate themselves and improve their lot in life for themselves and their children. Like my ancestors, before and during the Depression.

Unless of course those unfortunate get seduced by the "safety net" into living lives of peasantry (permanant underclass) and passing it onto their children because the ultimate impetus for improvement has been removed by good-hearted folks willing to vote my money away.

Astonishingly, if I wasn't spending money on taxes to support steel producers and a "War on Drugs" and corn farmers on one hand and baby farmers on the other I might have enough extra to invest wisely, improve my lot in life faster and give more to effective, working charities.

If I might add, I like to remind people that ALL of the great charitable organizations that we take for granted today, were born of a time when people didn't expect government to come to the rescure for every "disaster" that might befall an individual or group. .... the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Deseret, St.Vincent dePaul, et al would most likely be able to meet these things with donations and endowments from charitable individuals or groups IF government wasn't usurping that activity with tax dollars to which so many feel entitled.

-dixon cannon

 

[Dixon Cannon]

I have a great answer for this kind of question...

Here's an idea: why not choose to improve your lot in life a little less quickly, and then give more to effective, working charities? .

...."Ain't nobody's business but my own"!!! It is no one else's business who gives to charity and how much or when. If a wealthy man chooses to never give to charity, so be it!...he isn't obligated in anyway whatsoever. If a poor man gives 10% of his meager income each month - so be it.. he isn't obligated either. That is WHY it is called charity and why it is voluntary.

All of this comes under the category of Rational Selfishness - it's what makes that individual happy and content with themselves and their actions - it isn't to please others or to garner their favor or high opinion. And it isn't about Altruism!

-dixon cannon

 

[Alighieri]

I'm not sure how Katrina shows unequal treatment.

The people in the 9th Ward had all kinds of choices they didn't make correctly. They chose to live in N.O. where they knew hurricanes hit. They chose to live below sea level. They chose (against sanity and common sense and the weight of history) to believe that manmade structures could successfully protect them against force of nature. They chose not to stock up on supplies, they chose not to evacuate, they chose to trust idiot local and state leaders (who they chose to elect). Every person of every age, income, race and creed who made those same poor choices got the same treatment in the end.


It is important to not mistake (as is common) equality under the law with a false egalitarianism. All people should be treated the same by government but beyond that they're on their own with what they've got from birth.

Well said. I think Katrina shows that motivation is what seperates classes of people. New Orleans had 5 days notice. If you really wanted to, you could have walked to safety before the hurricane hit. Not an ideal situation, but one that might save your life. The decision to wait on the government illistrates one of the 3 great lies

1. The check is in the mail.
2. I am here from the governement and I am here to help.
3. (I will omit this one as it is vulgar) I am sure President Clinton mentioned it to Ms. Lewinski


Alighieri

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Hear! Hear!...well said!

I am not quite sure which school of economics you graduated from but in mine Keynesian theories were easily disproved and set aside. The fact that his theories only "work" within that particular depression era should really tell you something....J

Lugwid Von Mises, the Chicago School and Milton Friedman! Marx, Keynes, and Galbraith have been handily dismissed. Only the imbedded remnants of their policies are left to haunt us. And of course, those Altruists who still believe that government somehow produces wealth and should freely redistribute it.

-dixon cannon

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Not to be combative, but this just doesn't jibe with the reality of my own life experience at all -- and I think it shows the danger of generalizing broad stereotypes onto an entire class of people because it suits one's political philosophy to do so. The reality is often far different ...

Certainly the class system in the town where I grew up had a lot to do with the deprivation I faced as a child. "Working hard" wasn't enough -- it was *who you knew* as much as what you did, it was the connections you had that really opened the doors, and without those connections you were out of luck. If that's not a hidebound class system at work, I don't know what is.

.... it does rankle me a bit when armchair economists rail about "the welfare state" without ever actually talking to someone who was dependent on it and trying to understand what it was like. Real life isn't lived on the pages of textbooks.

Lizzie, thank you so much for sharing your story.

When people say that poor folks, many of them aged, without cars, and without any place to go, were "foolish" to stay in New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward -- a place where non-Creole (darker-skinned) blacks had been relegated to in the days of segregation, and from which few of their poor descendants could afford to move out -- I'm left speechless. The United States is the only country I know of where a person's poverty is considered a sign of his/her moral weakness and/or foolishness.


.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

...."Ain't nobody's business but my own"!!! It is no one else's business who gives to charity and how much or when. If a wealthy man chooses to never give to charity, so be it!

But you don't believe in altruism, which means that you don't believe in giving to charities. And if altruism is not to be believed in, then no one should believe in it, right? Therefore, no one should give to charities.

So ... if government should not help the needy, and if charities should not receive aid to help the needy, then the needy should not be helped, period. Every man for himself. Welcome to the jungle.



Frankly, I prefer the philosophy of Father Alberto Hurtado: "Give until it hurts".

Oh, and "It's better to give than to receive". No truer words were ever spoken.


.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

LizzieMaine,

"That's basically the point I was trying to make -- that we live in a world, in a system, where one's destiny isn't always fully under one's control, and that the notion of depending on the good-heartedness of the community at large is one of those theories that works really well on paper -- but not so hot when you're actually in the real world. Personally, I'd much rather see my tax money go to help people who were in the kind of situations that I was in than to subsidize tax breaks for the wealthy."

Absolutely no disrepect intended; your assertion that "one's distiny isn't always fully under one's control" just is not consistent with your own life's experience. You're not living in squalor. You're not eating at the dump. You're not stationed at the freeway exit begging for a dime. Nor are you, presumably a drunk, a drug addict or a streetwalker. You have in fact controlled your destiny to the best of your ability - or least to a level of contentment. And you a in a position to obtain or achieve more if you were to choose so.

The argument isn't really about tax money going as welfare - individual or corporate. It is about government's socialistic policies of redistributing wealth that isn't theirs to give. Wouldn't you really rather KEEP your "tax money" to use yourself or to give freely to others who have had life experiences like your own? Surely you have personal experience with people that government bureaucrats will never ever be able to achieve.

I'm one who firmly believes that you (and the millions of others YOU'S and ME'S in this society) are better prepared to dispose of our wealth than is a government bureaucrat with a Civil Service rating and a budget to protect.

I can't help but think of the countless organizations that have grown-up in this country that come to the assistance of others, having been born of circumstances no unlike your own.

Respectfully,
Dixon Cannon

 

[Dixon Cannon]

As I said "Ain't nobody's business but my own!!"

But you don't believe in altruism, which means that you don't believe in giving to charities. And if altruism is not to be believed in, then no one should believe in it, right? Therefore, no one should give to charities.

So ... if government should not help the needy, and if charities should not receive aid to help the needy, then the needy should not be helped, period. Every man for himself. Welcome to the jungle.



Frankly, I prefer the philosophy of Father Alberto Hurtado: "Give until it hurts".

Oh, and "It's better to give than to receive". No truer words were ever spoken.


.

-dixon cannon

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Ebenezer Scrooge, to the ghost of Jacob Marley: "But you were always a good man of business, Jacob!"

Marley's ghost: "Business! Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"


.

 

[Section10]

Ebenezer Scrooge, to the ghost of Jacob Marley: "But you were always a good man of business, Jacob!"

Marley's ghost: "Business! Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"
.

Yes. It is an opportunity or a stumbling block but it cannot be avoided by anyone.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Let old Ebenezer speak for himself...

Ebenezer Scrooge, to the ghost of Jacob Marley: "But you were always a good man of business, Jacob!"

Marley's ghost: "Business! Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!".

..if he could, perhaps he'd have this to say:

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4527

We all could learn a lot more from this site. I invite all to join in.
http://www.fee.org/ The Foundation For Economic Education. (FEE)

-dixon cannon

 

[jamespowers]

But you don't believe in altruism, which means that you don't believe in giving to charities. And if altruism is not to be believed in, then no one should believe in it, right? Therefore, no one should give to charities.

So ... if government should not help the needy, and if charities should not receive aid to help the needy, then the needy should not be helped, period. Every man for himself. Welcome to the jungle.



Frankly, I prefer the philosophy of Father Alberto Hurtado: "Give until it hurts".

Oh, and "It's better to give than to receive". No truer words were ever spoken.


.

Altruism:
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species.

For some reason I do not see any reference to charity here. I could have high regard or devotion to the welfare of other without giving away a cent or by giving away all of it. There is no specified amount.
While we are defining terms, lets remember that charity or giving away money for a cause or to benefit others is just that charity. To get recognition for doing as such is no longer charity. It is advertising. Therefore it is no one's business what you give. For some reason government is advertising. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Fine. Let's ask Dixon Cannon himself.

Dixon, do you believe in giving to charities?

.

 

[jamespowers]

Fine. Let's ask Dixon Cannon himself.

Dixon, do you believe in giving to charities?

.

That might be the question to ask but he still doesn't have to answer. That is up to each person. What does it matter anyway? There are always going to be people who will nonetheless. I am guessing that you would be counted among those. [huh]

Regards,

J

 

[airfrogusmc]

I am not quite sure which school of economics you graduated from but in mine Keynesian theories were easily disproved and set aside. The fact that his theories only "work" within that particular depression era should really tell you something.
Looking back at that time, by 1937 the depression was worse than it was when Roosevelt first got elected. His programs did nothing to jumpstart the economy and get private business and production back into motion. All it did was spend government money that could otherwise have been used by private industry in the form of investment and by consumers int he form of spending money to get ourselves out of the depression int he first place. Let's remember that the formula for GNP(gross national product) is C(consumer spending) + I(investment) + G (government spending). Government spending was sucking up the GNP and taking fromt he consumers and individual investment.
As Carebear said, it was the massive mobilization of men and industry that was created by our military build up to fight WWII that actually brought us out of the depression---not the New Steal. Compare the numbers and you will see which actually worked better---a decade of wild government spending or mobilizing the industrial might of this great country. The government didn't put everyone back to work industry, factories and private businesses did. The government produces nothing. It only takes.
Oh yes, and conservatives did nothing to stop FDR's programs. The law did. The Supreme Court ruled that his programs were unconstitutional misuses of his power. That and there really was no such thing as a "conservative" back then as there is now. Conservatives policies and politics did not come to the forefront until the late 1950s with such intellectuals as William Buckley leading the way.

Regards,

J

So JP then you know the that what Keynes was saying (basically) was what the private sector and the business sector didn't spend the government should make up and that would help the employment problem in that economy. What FDR did was take that money and put people back to work with work programs FSA WPA etc. The conservatives that were in congress didn't think that gov should be involved and started blocking programs. But as WWII proved once the gov put almost everyone back to work either in the military or with defense contractors the depression was over. The theory worked it just took a war to prove it.

 

[Roger]

I shake at the thought that government economic policy should be based on the need for a war to jump start an economy.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Well, let's see. The top ten percent of wage earners pay over 60% of the taxes while the middle class and such pay the rest. Ten percent pay 60% of the taxes while 90% pay 40% of the taxes. Hmmmmm..... Sounds fair to me. Way to get those tax cuts millionaires! :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

JP, Warren Buffett second richest man in the world said he finds it obscene that he is in a lower percentage than his secretary.

I find it obscene being self employed I pay over 30% and big oil got a 14 billion dollar tax break after posting record profits.