The Welfare State
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 11:30:17 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  The Welfare State
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: The Welfare State  (Read 4691 times)
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2005, 05:39:40 PM »

Objections to welfare.

1)   Welfare is not charity it’s theft.

Why would the non-owning majority mind if it is theft?
Spoken like a true thief. This is what happens when the country becomes a pure democracy instead of a constitutional republic as our constitution established. Under your philosophy, individual rights can be sacrificed in the name of the common good. 51% of the people can vote to take the assets from the wealthy and redistribute it to themselves. That may sound good to you but if they can take the rights of the wealthy they can also take the rights of Opebo. What happens if they vote to take your money and redistribute it?

I'm not in the least worried about the tyranny of the majority taking my money - what I'm worried about is they've already taken away my personal freedoms (prostitution and drugs).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a fallacy.  It redistributes from the owning class to the poor, not the working class.

[/quote]
Working people pay the taxes that fund those programs. Non-working people don't.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The non-working rich get a huge share of national income.
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2005, 08:18:18 PM »


The non-working rich get a huge share of national income.

That would include you. And yet all of your tax schemes somehow manage to exclude taxes on you.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2005, 09:05:33 PM »

I'm not in the least worried about the tyranny of the majority taking my money - what I'm worried about is they've already taken away my personal freedoms (prostitution and drugs).
And how, pray tell, will you obtain either of these without money?
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 22, 2005, 09:21:19 PM »

Objections to welfare.

1)   Welfare is not charity it’s theft.
Americans have always been free to donate as much of their money, time, or talent to worthwhile causes as they see fit. But when government uses the force of law to extract money from people who earned it and give it to someone else that’s not charity. Generosity with someone else’s money is not virtue. It’s theft. Politicians long ago realized that the government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. As long as they craft their tax and welfare plans so that there are more Pauls than Peters they can keep getting elected. Our constitution would prevent this but it has been largely rendered inoperative.

2)   Welfare breeds more welfare.
There is an old saying; “you get what you pay for.” In the case of welfare that holds true. If you pay people to stay home and have babies rather than work that’s what they will do, and they will do it in large numbers. The more babies they have the more they make, so they raise large families. Their children grow up believing that is a proper way of making a living and when they become adults they do the same thing. That causes the number of welfare cases to rise rapidly. As their population grows, so does their political power. They are able to elect politicians who will give them more goodies at the expense of the taxpayers.

3)   The welfare state puts a burden on the productive members of society.
As an example if you are poor you may be entitled to Medicaid to cover your medical expenses and you don’t pay for it. But if you work for a living your tax dollars pay for the system, but you can’t collect any benefits from it. You have to fund your healthcare some other way. It makes the working people servants of the poor.

4)   The welfare state defeats the free market forces that keep prices under control
Under Medicare and Medicaid, the people who receive the medical services are not the ones who pay for them. That creates a disconnect in the free market forces that normally keep prices down. Medicaid and Medicare were started about 40 years ago. Since then the cost of those two programs has grown 100 fold, far outstripping inflation. On the other hand, one medical treatment which is not covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or health insurance is vision correction surgery. It still operates in the free market. The result is that prices for that procedure have actually fallen from about $3000 per eye 15 years ago to under $1000 per eye today.


Good points.  I would also expand on your implied point about welfare undermining political instability.

Today, we have an excessive emphasis on rights, and often fail to recognize that rights impose responsibilities.  One of the responsibilities of self-government is self-support. 

Democracies/republics are implicitly founded on the notion that the vast majority of people are self-supporting and self-sustaining.  Because one's vote is equal regardless of level of contribution to society, or lack thereof, if those who are net non-contributors to society become a majority, self-government is severely jeopardized, since those who produce the nation's wealth will abandon democracy if it means that they are having the fruits of their labor stripped from them by a non-producing majority.

That's why anthing beyond a very limited welfare state is very dangerous.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2005, 06:23:09 AM »


The non-working rich get a huge share of national income.

That would include you. And yet all of your tax schemes somehow manage to exclude taxes on you.

Well no it really wouldn't, though it would just barely include my other family members.  I do believe that it is reasonable to allow people to be very moderately rich without heavy taxation - hence my tendency to bring in the really high rates only above $200-500K in annual income.  But above that I think we're talking about wealth which plays out more in terms of power than any individual quality of life.

I'm not in the least worried about the tyranny of the majority taking my money - what I'm worried about is they've already taken away my personal freedoms (prostitution and drugs).
And how, pray tell, will you obtain either of these without money?

Well, this is a reasonable point.  But I have never advocated socialism.  Progressive taxation still leaves the upper class with a lot more money than the lower, so there's no danger of not having a few bucks for a hooker.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2005, 07:15:47 AM »

Progressive taxation still leaves the upper class with a lot more money than the lower, so there's no danger of not having a few bucks for a hooker.

Wow, that's a relief. Smiley  I was getting worried about how you'd pay for your hookers under your economic proposals.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 11 queries.