Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2009-08-31 01:35:43
PureFodder
Member
+225|6573
Here's just a couple of places where tax money has huge benefits to economic growth in most rich countries:

1) R&D.
Almost all major discoveries and developments, especially in high tech industries come at public expense. From computers to aircraft to modern drugs, they all rely on years of publicly funded R&D to get to the point at which a commercially viable product is visible. The funding comes mainly through university, medical and military research. Spending tens of millions of pounds over 10-30 years on a research topic that has no obvious application or no certainty of success is not a practice that the private sector will enter in to any significant degree. The amount of tax money that goes into these schemes is truely huge.

2) Public works projects
A lot of improvements are simply out of the realistic economic stretch of the private sector or are unlikely to yeild sensible returns for the money spent on them. Interstate highways, train lines, subways, etc. the wide scale benefits of these can be immense. There is also massive government subsidy of a large range of industries to keep them going because the private sector is incapable of realistically achieving the desired goals. A lot of the richest people get their money from government supported businesses. This includes businesses from defence firms to farmers.

3) To Big to Fail
Large companies can take large risks because either they succeed and get loads of money or fuck up and the government bails them out. This free insurance plan for the ultra rich costs tax money.

4) A Happy Proletariat
Tax money is spent on a wide range of things that make the lives of the peons better. If tax money doesn't pay for them, either businesses will be forced into it or the mass populace will get pissed off enough to use their democratic power to force changes upon the rich. Ultimately there's more of them than there are rich folks, so make them unhappy enough and they'll use their democratic power to benefit themselves.
2009-08-31 05:19:00
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Frankly, Lance Armstrong has not given anything to the world.
And what have you, other than continual arrogance and condescension?
A lack of testicular cancer.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you have the money and wish to spend it attempting to keep themselves alive, that is their business. Acting like everyone has a right to the longest life possible on the other hand to justify "taxation makes people richer" is a logically devoid approach.
Social Darwinism is how societies fall, not rise.
Because?

If it works the same way as natural darwinism (they share the same name right? ) homo sapien begs to differ.

When the survival of the fittest is determined by some asshole that is one thing, but when correctly applied through social traits it can only be positive.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Letting people keep what money they earn does not push them further down the spectrum in any way. It can push the positive end of the spectrum higher, making the relative distance from the top seem further, but they did not become any poorer.
You just don't get it.  Because of life's uncertainties, a certain portion of the working class is going to need help at some point or another.  In other cases, people are handicapped in ways that require continual assistance.  I know you really don't give a shit about anyone other than yourself, but maybe someday, when someone close to you actually does have health problems, you'll understand.

PureFodder wrote:

[...]
I think he is on my side?

You are the one being selfish. Why should everyone pitch in to help that person that only means something to you?

Letting people keep the money they earn does not push them further down the spectrum. Social programs only allow people to spend more than they have earned - they do not make them richer.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Usually I am all for talking about things in abstract terms, but in this case that makes the idea devoid of all meaning. There is a definite price tag on social programs, they have to be paid for in dollars and cents. Assuming you define value as anything but the most you could possibly get voters to pay for it (yay big government) then there is a distinct point of where the most efficient dollar, the point after which you get diminishing returns. You would have an extremely difficult time giving me an example of a social program where that point is past this "optimal government revenue" point you say is around 50%.
Oh really?  How's this for starters?  If we socialized collegiate education to the extent that Canada does, the resulting improvement in having a much better educated workforce would result in higher government revenue while at the same time having an optimal spending level well beyond what is currently spent.
You are supposed to provide an example of a social program where the most effective dollar is at a price level over government revenue when the (flat?) tax rate is 50%.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Any amount of taxation harms economic growth.

The rich, primarily the ones who you are taking money from through taxation, are the ones who invest. Not very much of a transfer payment is going towards anything but consumption.

So yeah. Taxes are necessary, but the rest of your budget analysis kinda falls flat when you tax "the maximum without harming economic growth.
Bullshit.  There are plenty of cases where reinvestment of wealth via taxation increases the quality of life for society and in return, the average person's increase in standard of living from improved infrastructures translates to more growth.  China is the epitome of this.
This I can agree with, that infrastructure is national investment. You could make a similar argument for a national defense protecting said investment. Any amount of taxation for anything but infrastructure harms economic growth.
2009-08-31 21:10:22
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Frankly, Lance Armstrong has not given anything to the world.
And what have you, other than continual arrogance and condescension?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you have the money and wish to spend it attempting to keep themselves alive, that is their business. Acting like everyone has a right to the longest life possible on the other hand to justify "taxation makes people richer" is a logically devoid approach.
Social Darwinism is how societies fall, not rise.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Letting people keep what money they earn does not push them further down the spectrum in any way. It can push the positive end of the spectrum higher, making the relative distance from the top seem further, but they did not become any poorer.
You just don't get it.  Because of life's uncertainties, a certain portion of the working class is going to need help at some point or another.  In other cases, people are handicapped in ways that require continual assistance.  I know you really don't give a shit about anyone other than yourself, but maybe someday, when someone close to you actually does have health problems, you'll understand.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Usually I am all for talking about things in abstract terms, but in this case that makes the idea devoid of all meaning. There is a definite price tag on social programs, they have to be paid for in dollars and cents. Assuming you define value as anything but the most you could possibly get voters to pay for it (yay big government) then there is a distinct point of where the most efficient dollar, the point after which you get diminishing returns. You would have an extremely difficult time giving me an example of a social program where that point is past this "optimal government revenue" point you say is around 50%.
Oh really?  How's this for starters?  If we socialized collegiate education to the extent that Canada does, the resulting improvement in having a much better educated workforce would result in higher government revenue while at the same time having an optimal spending level well beyond what is currently spent.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Any amount of taxation harms economic growth.

The rich, primarily the ones who you are taking money from through taxation, are the ones who invest. Not very much of a transfer payment is going towards anything but consumption.

So yeah. Taxes are necessary, but the rest of your budget analysis kinda falls flat when you tax "the maximum without harming economic growth.
Bullshit.  There are plenty of cases where reinvestment of wealth via taxation increases the quality of life for society and in return, the average person's increase in standard of living from improved infrastructures translates to more growth.  China is the epitome of this.
Turquoise, I've been using the internet for a good 15 years at this point. You and your arguments are the only instance where I've actually lost my temper and wanted to reach through a computer screen and beat sense into another man. You sir,  are an idiot. You have no working knowledge of how an economy works or how businesses work. Advocating taking 50% of wages to pay for unnecessary government programs, just because, is by far the most asinine thing I've ever read. How about you give those wages back to the man that earned them and let him invest for his own retirement, his own health care, his own savings account where hey, he can save up for a rainy day when he may lose his job.

You and people like you assume that you know what's best for others when I guarantee you have a difficult time balancing your own checkbook, let alone 350 million other peoples.

Stop being a jealous prick that covets what other people own and earn. If they're rich, they're rich for a reason. If they were born rich and had it handed to them they're going to have a helluva time keeping it because they've never known what it means to struggle and earn it in the first place. If they don't deserve it and are incompetent the money will be gone in a generation or so anyway so what do you care?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-08-31 21:31:24
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

A lack of testicular cancer.
I'm sure Lance got cancer on purpose.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Because?

If it works the same way as natural darwinism (they share the same name right? ) homo sapien begs to differ.

When the survival of the fittest is determined by some asshole that is one thing, but when correctly applied through social traits it can only be positive.
The "assholes" are the elite rich and the abuses through the system that they can levy upon the working class.  Social Darwinism is a fancy phrase for oppressive greed.  And again, it is how previous societies fell, like the Roman Empire, France before the Revolution, and Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I think he is on my side?

You are the one being selfish. Why should everyone pitch in to help that person that only means something to you?

Letting people keep the money they earn does not push them further down the spectrum. Social programs only allow people to spend more than they have earned - they do not make them richer.
They give people the chance to get back on their feet, and in cases of permanent handicaps -- a way to stay alive.  It's called compassion.

When people experience adversity firsthand, they understand compassion a lot better.  I'm assuming you haven't had much adversity.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You are supposed to provide an example of a social program where the most effective dollar is at a price level over government revenue when the (flat?) tax rate is 50%.
I wasn't talking about a flat 50%, I was talking about that being the highest bracket in a graduated tax system.

If I understand your request correctly, my example is seen by how socialized collegiate education aids a country's workforce to a massive degree in places like Canada, France, Norway, the U.K., Japan, Germany, etc.  If we look at how having a highly skilled/educated population aids in productivity and how we could have the same results with more socialization of collegiate education, then it becomes clear that spending more on this is optimal for government revenue.  The increased spending would require higher tax rates at the top.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This I can agree with, that infrastructure is national investment. You could make a similar argument for a national defense protecting said investment. Any amount of taxation for anything but infrastructure harms economic growth.
Education and healthcare are infrastructures as well that are vital to economic growth.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-08-31 21:42:45)

2009-08-31 21:42:18
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise, I've been using the internet for a good 15 years at this point. You and your arguments are the only instance where I've actually lost my temper and wanted to reach through a computer screen and beat sense into another man. You sir,  are an idiot. You have no working knowledge of how an economy works or how businesses work.
Try that argument on someone without an economics degree.

If your name is any indication, you're an Objectivist, right?  That's kind of like the capitalistic equivalent of a Communist -- overly idealistic in your faith toward the market rather than toward the government.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Advocating taking 50% of wages to pay for unnecessary government programs, just because, is by far the most asinine thing I've ever read. How about you give those wages back to the man that earned them and let him invest for his own retirement, his own health care, his own savings account where hey, he can save up for a rainy day when he may lose his job.
It would be nice if life was that simple, but it isn't.

JohnG@lt wrote:

You and people like you assume that you know what's best for others when I guarantee you have a difficult time balancing your own checkbook, let alone 350 million other peoples.
I'd be willing to bet that I have a better credit score than you.  Just because I advocate social programs doesn't mean that I spend the way that our government currently does.  It's not a matter of me knowing what's better for others.  It's a matter of knowing history and what life was like before the New Deal.  It's a matter of realizing that the development of a sizable middle class in and of itself is only because of things like socialized education and welfare.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Stop being a jealous prick that covets what other people own and earn. If they're rich, they're rich for a reason. If they were born rich and had it handed to them they're going to have a helluva time keeping it because they've never known what it means to struggle and earn it in the first place. If they don't deserve it and are incompetent the money will be gone in a generation or so anyway so what do you care?
I care because modern life by First World standards requires a certain amount of wealth redistribution and reinvestment.  If you don't believe me, look at any First World country, including this one.

It's not a matter of jealousy, it's a matter of practicality.
2009-09-01 07:06:41
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise, I've been using the internet for a good 15 years at this point. You and your arguments are the only instance where I've actually lost my temper and wanted to reach through a computer screen and beat sense into another man. You sir,  are an idiot. You have no working knowledge of how an economy works or how businesses work.
Try that argument on someone without an economics degree.

If your name is any indication, you're an Objectivist, right?  That's kind of like the capitalistic equivalent of a Communist -- overly idealistic in your faith toward the market rather than toward the government.
Not exactly an Objectivist. Rand saw life in absolute black and whites, you were either completely with her or completely against her, and therefor her philosophy has zero tolerance for deviation. Her premises were solid when it came to how things worked in her time but there was no room for growth.

I am, however, a Minarchist. I feel very strongly that the only roles that the Federal Government should play are in the realms of Justice, Defense, and enforcing interstate commerce. That's it. The only way in which the government should touch business is by setting up a common currency, enforcing anti-collusion and anti-fraud laws and enforcing pollution restrictions (And no, not CO2). I have complete faith in the market and zero faith in government to ever correct itself.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Advocating taking 50% of wages to pay for unnecessary government programs, just because, is by far the most asinine thing I've ever read. How about you give those wages back to the man that earned them and let him invest for his own retirement, his own health care, his own savings account where hey, he can save up for a rainy day when he may lose his job.
It would be nice if life was that simple, but it isn't.

JohnG@lt wrote:

You and people like you assume that you know what's best for others when I guarantee you have a difficult time balancing your own checkbook, let alone 350 million other peoples.
I'd be willing to bet that I have a better credit score than you.  Just because I advocate social programs doesn't mean that I spend the way that our government currently does.  It's not a matter of me knowing what's better for others.  It's a matter of knowing history and what life was like before the New Deal.  It's a matter of realizing that the development of a sizable middle class in and of itself is only because of things like socialized education and welfare.
Or it could be that closing off immigration is what actually led to higher wages and the rise of the middle class in this country and it has absolutely nothing to do with socialized education or welfare. In fact, the current welfare system has created an underclass in this country that lives generation after generation on the government dole and is completely supported by it. All the socialization did was make people dependent on the government. It can also be argued strongly that the education system in this nation is one of the worst in the world BECAUSE OF the state run monopoly. We've allowed the teachers unions to entrench themselves within state legislatures and are now beholden to them. Because of this, Long Island has the highest property taxes in the nation with teachers making six figures for a part time job. Sure, we manage to have an abundance of people graduating college with English, Sociology and History degrees who like to complain about their low wages after college. Meanwhile we have an annual shortage of 100,000 engineers graduating alone. I'd call that a complete failure.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Stop being a jealous prick that covets what other people own and earn. If they're rich, they're rich for a reason. If they were born rich and had it handed to them they're going to have a helluva time keeping it because they've never known what it means to struggle and earn it in the first place. If they don't deserve it and are incompetent the money will be gone in a generation or so anyway so what do you care?
I care because modern life by First World standards requires a certain amount of wealth redistribution and reinvestment.  If you don't believe me, look at any First World country, including this one.

It's not a matter of jealousy, it's a matter of practicality.
It doesn't require wealth redistribution in the slightest. What it requires is not rewarding failure and keeping the 'carrot on a stick' in place to drive people towards becoming wealthy on their own. That drive then creates jobs, fosters new ideas, and pushes us to ever higher heights. Socialism such as what you propose just leads to stagnation and even worse, erosion of wealth. When the only benefit to living in an upwardly mobile society is a higher tax rate you remove the desire for many to achieve greatness. I suppose if you are mediocre yourself or strive for mediocrity Socialism seems like a great thing. I do not.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-01 07:16:22
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6962|Canberra, AUS
I have complete faith in the market and zero faith in government to ever correct itself.
Hmmm.

So you're saying that government is incapable of correcting itself? That the people the people voted in are less capable in doing the job they were voted in for than people who by nature have no reason to care about anything beyond their business (which is fine, no doubt about it - but I would much rather a high school cirriculum, for example, be set by government than by businesses who may tailor individual cirriculum to individual needs, because they can and will)?

And if the market is always correct, why do you need anti-corruption and anti-fraud laws? Because the capitalistic game is an inherently self-centred one, that's why.

Or it could be that closing off immigration is what actually led to higher wages and the rise of the middle class in this country and it has absolutely nothing to do with socialized education or welfare.
This argument doesn't make sense as it stands. How on earth is not educating people going to increase productivity? Please expand because that's exactly what it looks like you're saying at the moment.

Last edited by Spark (2009-09-01 07:26:41)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-09-01 07:21:38
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6440|what

If the market would automatically correct itself there would be no such thing as the paradox of thrift.


As to the second argument, technology is an industry driver, having an increased knowledge base in your population creates more jobs than having a larger lower tier of unskilled labour.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-09-01 07:25:33
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6962|Canberra, AUS

AussieReaper wrote:

If the market would automatically correct itself there would be no such thing as the paradox of thrift.


As to the second argument, technology is an industry driver, having an increased knowledge base in your population creates more jobs than having a larger lower tier of unskilled labour.
Well, I always thought that more educated people = more people finding better jobs.

I can't see how letting them rot on the street would help. Sure you might feel some self-righteousness because they deserve it (they probably do)... but really. Not helpful.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-09-01 07:37:20
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6440|what

Spark wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

If the market would automatically correct itself there would be no such thing as the paradox of thrift.


As to the second argument, technology is an industry driver, having an increased knowledge base in your population creates more jobs than having a larger lower tier of unskilled labour.
Well, I always thought that more educated people = more people finding better jobs.

I can't see how letting them rot on the street would help. Sure you might feel some self-righteousness because they deserve it (they probably do)... but really. Not helpful.
The right-wing view is that with a larger lowly educated working class you get more cheap labor so big businesses are likely to save money and do really well and spend it on more workers.

The trickle down effect as it is known, where the rich piss on the poor...
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-09-01 08:04:03
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85
Denouncing socialized education is not the same as denouncing education. That's why there is an adjective in front of it.

So no, that's not exactly what he is saying.
2009-09-01 08:25:17
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

A lack of testicular cancer.
I'm sure Lance got cancer on purpose.
irrelevant. That is the lot life has dealt him, and he is the one who has to deal with it.

Your wanting things to be fair does not make them so.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Because?

If it works the same way as natural darwinism (they share the same name right? ) homo sapien begs to differ.

When the survival of the fittest is determined by some asshole that is one thing, but when correctly applied through social traits it can only be positive.
The "assholes" are the elite rich and the abuses through the system that they can levy upon the working class.  Social Darwinism is a fancy phrase for oppressive greed.  And again, it is how previous societies fell, like the Roman Empire, France before the Revolution, and Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution.
What exactly are these abuses the only rich people are allowed?

Those societies fell because of incompetence at the top. Social Darwinism works towards the opposite.

Social Darwinism does not work in a regime where status, not just wealth is inherited, as in all the above examples. This is extremely untrue in any modern Western society.

Turquoise wrote:

They give people the chance to get back on their feet, and in cases of permanent handicaps -- a way to stay alive.  It's called compassion.

When people experience adversity firsthand, they understand compassion a lot better.  I'm assuming you haven't had much adversity.
It's called greed. Greed in avoiding the facts of life, in wanting to keep people around as long as possible, in wanting other people to prolong your life as long as possible. Greed in creating a society that will bend over backwards to help you, and justified by a greed for making society bend over backwards for everyone else as an individual.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You are supposed to provide an example of a social program where the most effective dollar is at a price level over government revenue when the (flat?) tax rate is 50%.
I wasn't talking about a flat 50%, I was talking about that being the highest bracket in a graduated tax system.

If I understand your request correctly, my example is seen by how socialized collegiate education aids a country's workforce to a massive degree in places like Canada, France, Norway, the U.K., Japan, Germany, etc.  If we look at how having a highly skilled/educated population aids in productivity and how we could have the same results with more socialization of collegiate education, then it becomes clear that spending more on this is optimal for government revenue.  The increased spending would require higher tax rates at the top.
You can't just put one program on top of all the other bullshit (collectivist or not, there is a lot of bullshit) we have. You have to justify one program or a series of programs that together justifies at 50% max tax rate.

There are a lot of examples of a good program that you could put on top of everything else, but that doesn't make any sense. One gem on a pile of shit doesn't justify the entire pile of shit. (eloquent I know)

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This I can agree with, that infrastructure is national investment. You could make a similar argument for a national defense protecting said investment. Any amount of taxation for anything but infrastructure harms economic growth.
Education and healthcare are infrastructures as well that are vital to economic growth.
Education okay. Mail,  fire protection, police force, etc. okay.

Healthcare no. It could only possibly be considered an investment if you prioritized healthcare for the most "valuable" members of society, a ridiculous concept. If everyone is equal, letting anyone die is not an issue in terms of national investment.
2009-09-01 09:11:04
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Spark wrote:

I have complete faith in the market and zero faith in government to ever correct itself.
Hmmm.

So you're saying that government is incapable of correcting itself? That the people the people voted in are less capable in doing the job they were voted in for than people who by nature have no reason to care about anything beyond their business (which is fine, no doubt about it - but I would much rather a high school cirriculum, for example, be set by government than by businesses who may tailor individual cirriculum to individual needs, because they can and will)?
Government in the United States is completely corrupt. How many senators and congressmen have made millions while in office by directing funds to their friends, by opening their pockets to every special interest group and lobbyist etc. When we are limited to exactly two parties and are forced to choose the lesser of two evils based on what they sell us then yes, I can honestly say I have no faith in government. "The object of power is power." This is especially true in a society that has completely marginalized and defrauded its own education. Most people seek entertainment via their TV or video games and live in a state of mental apathy. Very few are even capable of holding a conversation past what occurred on American Idol the previous night. You place your trust in these people to correct the government? Ha! 90% of them re-elect the incumbent each election.

Spark wrote:

And if the market is always correct, why do you need anti-corruption and anti-fraud laws? Because the capitalistic game is an inherently self-centred one, that's why.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in pursuing your rational self-interest. Whether you live or die today does not mean anything to me. If I die today then I lose. The market is self-correcting when government isn't allowed to interfere. What we have today is crony capitalism where special interests and corporations buy politicians to entrench themselves at the expense of their rivals. It matters not if their product or service is superior when all it takes is a little money in a few senators pockets to make sure they win.

You don't think this is true? Why do you think that the price of health care is so high? It's not because of the evil greedy insurance companies. It's because your state legislators have been bought and paid for and have allowed those insurance companies to write legislation entrenching themselves. There is little to no competition because of this and this is why the prices are so high. This doesn't make the insurance companies evil, it makes your state legislatures evil for allowing it to happen. We don't need socialized health care, we need the US Congress to enforce the interstate commerce laws and open up the market to competition.

Spark wrote:

Or it could be that closing off immigration is what actually led to higher wages and the rise of the middle class in this country and it has absolutely nothing to do with socialized education or welfare.
This argument doesn't make sense as it stands. How on earth is not educating people going to increase productivity? Please expand because that's exactly what it looks like you're saying at the moment.
It makes perfect sense. It wasn't the education that drove up wages, I know plenty of people with college degrees making 30k a year, it was a slackening in competition for jobs. Notice that wages across the country are going down right now? It's not because the economy sucks, it's because there are too many people looking for too few jobs and it gives the power to the companies. Back around 2000-2001 when unemployment was miniscule wages were soaring. In the 1800s and early 1900s there was a flood of immigrants stepping off the boat every day and all seeking work. This is what kept wages down, not the fact that people weren't educated. Education helps, I'm in no way saying it doesn't, but it was not the primary reason for the rise of the middle class in this nation. It wasn't unions either. It was cutting off that flood of new workers that could easily replace those who had jobs.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-01 09:13:53
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Denouncing socialized education is not the same as denouncing education. That's why there is an adjective in front of it.

So no, that's not exactly what he is saying.
Correct. I'm a big fan of the charter schools that have been springing up in this state but the teachers union has essentially written the laws here only allowing for a certain number to be built. They don't want the competition because they have a very nice racket working immeasurably in their favor.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-01 09:18:26
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6829|Texas - Bigger than France

Harmor wrote:

So I was reading this article about some one justifying the 1 trillion dollar cost for health care because the Republican Congress and George W. Bush passed a 3 trillion dollar "Bush Tax cuts" in 2001 and 2003:
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/08 … n_debt.php

and was thinking about this quote in the article:

The Atlantic wrote:

...Reagan/Laffer theory that cutting taxes leads to higher economic growth, which conveniently returns more revenue to the government's coffers even with the lower rate.
If it is true that lowering tax rates increases revenue to the government, why aren't Democrat's in favor of it as it would allow them to spend more on social programs?
Democrats believe that tax cuts for the rich will result in a larger gulf between the upper and lower classes, which will in turn increase the cost of social programs.
2009-09-01 19:09:02
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not exactly an Objectivist. Rand saw life in absolute black and whites, you were either completely with her or completely against her, and therefor her philosophy has zero tolerance for deviation. Her premises were solid when it came to how things worked in her time but there was no room for growth.

I am, however, a Minarchist. I feel very strongly that the only roles that the Federal Government should play are in the realms of Justice, Defense, and enforcing interstate commerce. That's it. The only way in which the government should touch business is by setting up a common currency, enforcing anti-collusion and anti-fraud laws and enforcing pollution restrictions (And no, not CO2). I have complete faith in the market and zero faith in government to ever correct itself.
Your opinion on the government is rather strange considering you said you were in the Army.  If you distrust government so much, then how can you literally trust it with your life?  I realize that you mentioned defense, but if there's anywhere our government is corrupt -- it's in foreign policy.  We get ourselves in more trouble meddling with other countries than we do with anything domestic, and when you serve as a soldier, you're literally putting your neck out there for the sake of conflicts that are often little more than a way for a war profiteering politician to make money.

I respect the fact that you enlisted, but I have to wonder exactly how your logic works here.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Or it could be that closing off immigration is what actually led to higher wages and the rise of the middle class in this country and it has absolutely nothing to do with socialized education or welfare.
And your assumption about immigration is completely off. 

"THE FLOW of legal immigrants has increased steadily since the 1930s, when only 500,000 immigrants were admitted during the entire decade. In the 1950s, 250,000 legal immigrants entered the United States each year. By the 1990s, nearly 900,000 legal immigrants were being admitted every year."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m … _16823452/

During the period in which we enacted the New Deal, fought WW2, and experienced massive economic growth after WW2, immigration grew steadily.  While it is true that we initially allowed few immigrants into the country during the 30s, that changed very quickly in the 40s.  I figured a Libertarian like yourself would understand how immigration can actually be a great aid to economic growth, since the LP is very pro-immigration as well.

Now, admittedly, I'm not exactly pro-immigration (or anti-immigration for that matter), and while certain restrictions could possibly aid in maintaining higher wages, that's not how our society has progressed.  We've gone the opposite route for the majority of the 20th Century and for the 21st Century so far.

JohnG@lt wrote:

In fact, the current welfare system has created an underclass in this country that lives generation after generation on the government dole and is completely supported by it. All the socialization did was make people dependent on the government. It can also be argued strongly that the education system in this nation is one of the worst in the world BECAUSE OF the state run monopoly. We've allowed the teachers unions to entrench themselves within state legislatures and are now beholden to them. Because of this, Long Island has the highest property taxes in the nation with teachers making six figures for a part time job. Sure, we manage to have an abundance of people graduating college with English, Sociology and History degrees who like to complain about their low wages after college. Meanwhile we have an annual shortage of 100,000 engineers graduating alone. I'd call that a complete failure.
First, your argument against socialized education falls flat when comparing our system to the more socialized systems of Japan, Canada, the U.K., France, and Norway.  All of those countries have superior education systems, and all of them are more socialized than ours.

What hurts our education system is the disparity in the quality of education.  There is less wealth disparity in all of the countries mentioned above, and because of this, it is easier for these countries to maintain a more consistent level of education quality than us.  By contrast, some American states are very rich (like Massachusetts) and others are very poor (like Mississippi).  Because of this, some systems have much more funding and more qualified teachers to work with, while others suffer considerably in quality due to poverty and a lack of enough qualified teachers.

JohnG@lt wrote:

It doesn't require wealth redistribution in the slightest. What it requires is not rewarding failure and keeping the 'carrot on a stick' in place to drive people towards becoming wealthy on their own. That drive then creates jobs, fosters new ideas, and pushes us to ever higher heights. Socialism such as what you propose just leads to stagnation and even worse, erosion of wealth. When the only benefit to living in an upwardly mobile society is a higher tax rate you remove the desire for many to achieve greatness. I suppose if you are mediocre yourself or strive for mediocrity Socialism seems like a great thing. I do not.
Norway is far from mediocre.  Japan is far from mediocre.  Ireland is far from mediocre.  All of these countries socialize in education and healthcare more than us.  I could list out several others that fit this description, but instead of doing that, I'll direct you to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

All of the countries above us on the HDI ranking live better than us in terms of public amenities and crime rates.   Most of them also have higher ranked healthcare systems.   And ALL of them are more socialized.

I would like to point out that Iceland will likely not remain as #1 in a year or two, because they specifically threw caution to the wind and opened up their economy to the whims of highly risky and highly capitalistic banking practices that did not properly guard their economic stability.  So, admittedly, socialization isn't foolproof.  You can still ruin your economy under socialization if you recklessly render yourself dependent on the investment habits of highly capitalistic countries.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-09-01 19:12:46)

2009-09-01 19:15:54
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Norway is far from mediocre.  Japan is far from mediocre.  Ireland is far from mediocre.  All of these countries socialize in education and healthcare more than us.
Despite our shortfalls, the U.S. is still far from mediocre, yet we are the least socialized. What say you?
2009-09-01 19:24:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Norway is far from mediocre.  Japan is far from mediocre.  Ireland is far from mediocre.  All of these countries socialize in education and healthcare more than us.
Despite our shortfalls, the U.S. is still far from mediocre, yet we are the least socialized. What say you?
Our education certainly is...

We aren't the least socialized country in the world and we aren't the most mediocre.  However, we still lack the level of quality in education that those countries have.   We also have considerably more crime.   We also have a healthcare system that is much, much more expensive than theirs.

So yeah, we're not mediocre, but we're not as great as some people think we are.
2009-09-01 19:38:32
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

irrelevant. That is the lot life has dealt him, and he is the one who has to deal with it.

Your wanting things to be fair does not make them so.
Now wait a minute.  Earlier you were arguing that taxing the rich more than the working class wasn't fair.  Make up your mind.  Is "fairness" on your agenda or not?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What exactly are these abuses the only rich people are allowed?
Only the wealthy have enough money to spend on lobbyism to manipulate government policy.  Only the wealthy have the ability to manipulate markets so that consumers are mostly powerless.  Only the wealthy have enough money to spend on propagandizing the masses to the most effective degree....  and it is shown by how blindly so many trust the market despite repeated historical cases of market corruption.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Those societies fell because of incompetence at the top. Social Darwinism works towards the opposite.

Social Darwinism does not work in a regime where status, not just wealth is inherited, as in all the above examples. This is extremely untrue in any modern Western society.
By your definition then, social darwinism has never existed.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's called greed. Greed in avoiding the facts of life, in wanting to keep people around as long as possible, in wanting other people to prolong your life as long as possible. Greed in creating a society that will bend over backwards to help you, and justified by a greed for making society bend over backwards for everyone else as an individual.
So does that mean that the wealthy deserve to live longer?  Because that's what you effectively are supporting by suggesting that care should only be provided to those that can afford it personally.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You can't just put one program on top of all the other bullshit (collectivist or not, there is a lot of bullshit) we have. You have to justify one program or a series of programs that together justifies at 50% max tax rate.

There are a lot of examples of a good program that you could put on top of everything else, but that doesn't make any sense. One gem on a pile of shit doesn't justify the entire pile of shit. (eloquent I know)
I can justify socialized medicine as well, which will undoubtedly cost more than any other program, which is why I think it's large enough on its own to justify the said rate.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Healthcare no. It could only possibly be considered an investment if you prioritized healthcare for the most "valuable" members of society, a ridiculous concept. If everyone is equal, letting anyone die is not an issue in terms of national investment.
That prioritization already happens in triage, except that it's based on the urgency of need rather than "importance."  I think this way of prioritizing should be the basis of our healthcare overall, rather than profit.
2009-09-01 20:40:47
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Norway is far from mediocre.  Japan is far from mediocre.  Ireland is far from mediocre.  All of these countries socialize in education and healthcare more than us.
Despite our shortfalls, the U.S. is still far from mediocre, yet we are the least socialized. What say you?
Our education certainly is...

We aren't the least socialized country in the world and we aren't the most mediocre.  However, we still lack the level of quality in education that those countries have.   We also have considerably more crime.   We also have a healthcare system that is much, much more expensive than theirs.

So yeah, we're not mediocre, but we're not as great as some people think we are.
Just answering the short post first. You know damn well that it has very little, if anything, to do with money dumped into the system. You could dump all the money in the world into the American education system and I guarantee the results would be very similar to what we have today. Teachers and education are by no means underfunded in this country.

Every single problem with childrens education in this country is due to the fact that parents think that learning begins and ends with the school bell. It comes down to culture and we happen to live in the paramount TV culture in the world. There are far too many kids who can quote Paris Hilton and would look at you funny if you asked them who wrote a speech that began with "Four score and seven years ago". We as a society do not value education and making it 'free' is what makes it valueless. We live in a consumer driven nation where value is equated with cost. I could sell you a hunk of shit if I told you it was special and put a million dollar price tag on it.

I know far too many Swedes (I am Swedish and German descent) that have sat in university for a decade trying to figure out what they wanted to do with their life because it was 'free'. The same goes for Ivy League schools in this country. It's basically the same education but people want it because it's exclusive and it costs a lot of money. A comparable state school is looked upon with disdain even though the education provided is equal. Your thinking is completely backwards.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-09-01 20:42:05)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-01 20:51:37
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not exactly an Objectivist. Rand saw life in absolute black and whites, you were either completely with her or completely against her, and therefor her philosophy has zero tolerance for deviation. Her premises were solid when it came to how things worked in her time but there was no room for growth.

I am, however, a Minarchist. I feel very strongly that the only roles that the Federal Government should play are in the realms of Justice, Defense, and enforcing interstate commerce. That's it. The only way in which the government should touch business is by setting up a common currency, enforcing anti-collusion and anti-fraud laws and enforcing pollution restrictions (And no, not CO2). I have complete faith in the market and zero faith in government to ever correct itself.
Your opinion on the government is rather strange considering you said you were in the Army.  If you distrust government so much, then how can you literally trust it with your life?  I realize that you mentioned defense, but if there's anywhere our government is corrupt -- it's in foreign policy.  We get ourselves in more trouble meddling with other countries than we do with anything domestic, and when you serve as a soldier, you're literally putting your neck out there for the sake of conflicts that are often little more than a way for a war profiteering politician to make money.

I respect the fact that you enlisted, but I have to wonder exactly how your logic works here.
Or it could be that I joined for the GI Bill because I didn't want student loans hanging over my head when I got out of school. It could be that I didn't yet know what I wanted to do with my life and didn't want to waste money in school while I was deciding. It could be that I joined a year before 9/11 happened and I had no clue I was going to be fighting in a war I didn't believe in.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Or it could be that closing off immigration is what actually led to higher wages and the rise of the middle class in this country and it has absolutely nothing to do with socialized education or welfare.
And your assumption about immigration is completely off. 

"THE FLOW of legal immigrants has increased steadily since the 1930s, when only 500,000 immigrants were admitted during the entire decade. In the 1950s, 250,000 legal immigrants entered the United States each year. By the 1990s, nearly 900,000 legal immigrants were being admitted every year."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m … _16823452/

During the period in which we enacted the New Deal, fought WW2, and experienced massive economic growth after WW2, immigration grew steadily.  While it is true that we initially allowed few immigrants into the country during the 30s, that changed very quickly in the 40s.  I figured a Libertarian like yourself would understand how immigration can actually be a great aid to economic growth, since the LP is very pro-immigration as well.

Now, admittedly, I'm not exactly pro-immigration (or anti-immigration for that matter), and while certain restrictions could possibly aid in maintaining higher wages, that's not how our society has progressed.  We've gone the opposite route for the majority of the 20th Century and for the 21st Century so far.
I am not anti-immigration by any means. 3/4 of my grandparents were immigrants so it would be rather hypocritical of me, no? I've worked as a waiter for a few years now and it's ridiculously hard for restaurant owners to find dishwashers, cooks etc that aren't hispanic. White and Black teenagers who used to do the jobs are now sitting on their asses during the summer playing video games instead. More power to the immigrants for filling a need. I'm not saying they should be limited to unskilled labor but it happens to be the gap they are filling at this time.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

In fact, the current welfare system has created an underclass in this country that lives generation after generation on the government dole and is completely supported by it. All the socialization did was make people dependent on the government. It can also be argued strongly that the education system in this nation is one of the worst in the world BECAUSE OF the state run monopoly. We've allowed the teachers unions to entrench themselves within state legislatures and are now beholden to them. Because of this, Long Island has the highest property taxes in the nation with teachers making six figures for a part time job. Sure, we manage to have an abundance of people graduating college with English, Sociology and History degrees who like to complain about their low wages after college. Meanwhile we have an annual shortage of 100,000 engineers graduating alone. I'd call that a complete failure.
First, your argument against socialized education falls flat when comparing our system to the more socialized systems of Japan, Canada, the U.K., France, and Norway.  All of those countries have superior education systems, and all of them are more socialized than ours.

What hurts our education system is the disparity in the quality of education.  There is less wealth disparity in all of the countries mentioned above, and because of this, it is easier for these countries to maintain a more consistent level of education quality than us.  By contrast, some American states are very rich (like Massachusetts) and others are very poor (like Mississippi).  Because of this, some systems have much more funding and more qualified teachers to work with, while others suffer considerably in quality due to poverty and a lack of enough qualified teachers.
I refuted this in a post below.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It doesn't require wealth redistribution in the slightest. What it requires is not rewarding failure and keeping the 'carrot on a stick' in place to drive people towards becoming wealthy on their own. That drive then creates jobs, fosters new ideas, and pushes us to ever higher heights. Socialism such as what you propose just leads to stagnation and even worse, erosion of wealth. When the only benefit to living in an upwardly mobile society is a higher tax rate you remove the desire for many to achieve greatness. I suppose if you are mediocre yourself or strive for mediocrity Socialism seems like a great thing. I do not.
Norway is far from mediocre.  Japan is far from mediocre.  Ireland is far from mediocre.  All of these countries socialize in education and healthcare more than us.  I could list out several others that fit this description, but instead of doing that, I'll direct you to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

All of the countries above us on the HDI ranking live better than us in terms of public amenities and crime rates.   Most of them also have higher ranked healthcare systems.   And ALL of them are more socialized.

I would like to point out that Iceland will likely not remain as #1 in a year or two, because they specifically threw caution to the wind and opened up their economy to the whims of highly risky and highly capitalistic banking practices that did not properly guard their economic stability.  So, admittedly, socialization isn't foolproof.  You can still ruin your economy under socialization if you recklessly render yourself dependent on the investment habits of highly capitalistic countries.
Norway only survives because it has oil. Ireland has lowered corporate tax rates, attracted new businesses and has a booming economy because of it. Funny that.

As for your link... It's a UN link. Show me a single chart produced by the UN that wasn't 100% biased towards socialism and I will eat the Mets hat I am currently wearing. Here's where you whip out the WHO health care chart, yes? Look at the grading criteria and then get back to me.

I'm sure you've heard this a million times... If you think those other countries are so wonderful and have a better way of life than we do here feel free to move to one of them. Why the socialist minority in this country, and yes, you are a distinct minority at less than 20% feel the desire to change everything about America to suit their own vision is beyond me. Go. Move. Do the rest of us a favor.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-09-01 20:55:26)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-01 20:58:14
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


Despite our shortfalls, the U.S. is still far from mediocre, yet we are the least socialized. What say you?
Our education certainly is...

We aren't the least socialized country in the world and we aren't the most mediocre.  However, we still lack the level of quality in education that those countries have.   We also have considerably more crime.   We also have a healthcare system that is much, much more expensive than theirs.

So yeah, we're not mediocre, but we're not as great as some people think we are.
Just answering the short post first. You know damn well that it has very little, if anything, to do with money dumped into the system. You could dump all the money in the world into the American education system and I guarantee the results would be very similar to what we have today. Teachers and education are by no means underfunded in this country.
That depends on the state.  Some states spend a lot on education and it still sucks, so that much...  we agree on.

In other cases, not much money at all is being spent on education comparatively speaking, so in states like that (like Mississippi), spending really is an issue, but of course, that's often in states that have less funds to begin with.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Every single problem with childrens education in this country is due to the fact that parents think that learning begins and ends with the school bell. It comes down to culture and we happen to live in the paramount TV culture in the world. There are far too many kids who can quote Paris Hilton and would look at you funny if you asked them who wrote a speech that began with "Four score and seven years ago". We as a society do not value education and making it 'free' is what makes it valueless. We live in a consumer driven nation where value is equated with cost. I could sell you a hunk of shit if I told you it was special and put a million dollar price tag on it.
I wouldn't say it's everything, but I would agree that it is a lot of it.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I know far too many Swedes (I am Swedish and German descent) that have sat in university for a decade trying to figure out what they wanted to do with their life because it was 'free'. The same goes for Ivy League schools in this country. It's basically the same education but people want it because it's exclusive and it costs a lot of money. A comparable state school is looked upon with disdain even though the education provided is equal. Your thinking is completely backwards.
And even though you might know a lot of people that fit this description, ask yourself if the majority are this way.  Ask yourself if the average person in a socialized education system doesn't ultimately benefit more from having easier access to whatever classes they may desire.  Ask yourself if the benefits of having a more educated workforce don't ultimately benefit the economy enough to make up for the freeloaders.

I think you'll find that it's worth the upfront costs of taxation.
2009-09-01 21:01:37
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Our education certainly is...

We aren't the least socialized country in the world and we aren't the most mediocre.  However, we still lack the level of quality in education that those countries have.   We also have considerably more crime.   We also have a healthcare system that is much, much more expensive than theirs.

So yeah, we're not mediocre, but we're not as great as some people think we are.
Just answering the short post first. You know damn well that it has very little, if anything, to do with money dumped into the system. You could dump all the money in the world into the American education system and I guarantee the results would be very similar to what we have today. Teachers and education are by no means underfunded in this country.
That depends on the state.  Some states spend a lot on education and it still sucks, so that much...  we agree on.

In other cases, not much money at all is being spent on education comparatively speaking, so in states like that (like Mississippi), spending really is an issue, but of course, that's often in states that have less funds to begin with.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Every single problem with childrens education in this country is due to the fact that parents think that learning begins and ends with the school bell. It comes down to culture and we happen to live in the paramount TV culture in the world. There are far too many kids who can quote Paris Hilton and would look at you funny if you asked them who wrote a speech that began with "Four score and seven years ago". We as a society do not value education and making it 'free' is what makes it valueless. We live in a consumer driven nation where value is equated with cost. I could sell you a hunk of shit if I told you it was special and put a million dollar price tag on it.
I wouldn't say it's everything, but I would agree that it is a lot of it.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I know far too many Swedes (I am Swedish and German descent) that have sat in university for a decade trying to figure out what they wanted to do with their life because it was 'free'. The same goes for Ivy League schools in this country. It's basically the same education but people want it because it's exclusive and it costs a lot of money. A comparable state school is looked upon with disdain even though the education provided is equal. Your thinking is completely backwards.
And even though you might know a lot of people that fit this description, ask yourself if the majority are this way.  Ask yourself if the average person in a socialized education system doesn't ultimately benefit more from having easier access to whatever classes they may desire.  Ask yourself if the benefits of having a more educated workforce don't ultimately benefit the economy enough to make up for the freeloaders.

I think you'll find that it's worth the upfront costs of taxation.
Sure, but have them earn it via time spent in the military or americorps or whatever else. When something like education is handed out to all comers it loses its value. If they don't have the money to pay for it make them earn it. They'll appreciate it more. I know I do.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-01 21:02:04
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Earlier you were arguing that taxing the rich more than the working class wasn't fair.
where?

Turquoise wrote:

Only the wealthy have enough money to spend on lobbyism to manipulate government policy.  Only the wealthy have the ability to manipulate markets so that consumers are mostly powerless.  Only the wealthy have enough money to spend on propagandizing the masses to the most effective degree....  and it is shown by how blindly so many trust the market despite repeated historical cases of market corruption.
But everyone has the ability to acquire wealth, and then take part in the activities you mention.

If the ability to acquire wealth was something only the rich can do, that is a gaping hole in your argument. Kind of a dumb one to go back in and add.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Those societies fell because of incompetence at the top. Social Darwinism works towards the opposite.

Social Darwinism does not work in a regime where status, not just wealth is inherited, as in all the above examples. This is extremely untrue in any modern Western society.
By your definition then, social darwinism has never existed.
No, it hasn't, because people like you believe in a welfare state.

Turquoise wrote:

So does that mean that the wealthy deserve to live longer?  Because that's what you effectively are supporting by suggesting that care should only be provided to those that can afford it personally.
They don't deserve to live longer - they have the means to live longer.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You can't just put one program on top of all the other bullshit (collectivist or not, there is a lot of bullshit) we have. You have to justify one program or a series of programs that together justifies at 50% max tax rate.

There are a lot of examples of a good program that you could put on top of everything else, but that doesn't make any sense. One gem on a pile of shit doesn't justify the entire pile of shit. (eloquent I know)
I can justify socialized medicine as well, which will undoubtedly cost more than any other program, which is why I think it's large enough on its own to justify the said rate.
Besides our clearly divergent definitions of justification, how do you know it would cost 50%? How do you know that even the government couldn't do it for less?

Turquoise wrote:

That prioritization already happens in triage, except that it's based on the urgency of need rather than "importance."  I think this way of prioritizing should be the basis of our healthcare overall, rather than profit.
Triage is based on maximizing medical efficiency. If you are in such intense need that you will probably die, you are left to die if there are more pressing cases. It is based on stabilizing those who need care now, but are not lost causes, with the idea that everyone in more "urgent need" is a lost cause and everyone behind can wait a little longer. It is about profiting most from what care you have.

Nice analogy.
2009-09-01 21:03:55
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Norway is far from mediocre.  Japan is far from mediocre.  Ireland is far from mediocre.  All of these countries socialize in education and healthcare more than us.
Despite our shortfalls, the U.S. is still far from mediocre, yet we are the least socialized. What say you?
Our education certainly is...

We aren't the least socialized country in the world and we aren't the most mediocre.  However, we still lack the level of quality in education that those countries have.   We also have considerably more crime.   We also have a healthcare system that is much, much more expensive than theirs.

So yeah, we're not mediocre, but we're not as great as some people think we are.
The way you describe it, we should be pretty shit right? Near the bottom? Clearly we aren't...so what's the dealio?

There are intangible systems and attitudes that you fail to take into account.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard