welfare (thread turned into Y.a. neos v paleos argument)

[John Dibble]

Saying that income tax should not be paid on wages is definitely crazy.

My main complaint about taxing wages as income is that they do it twice - once every paycheck and once a year at income tax time. Pick one way or the other and stick with it as far as I'm concerned.

The kind of reduction of the government advocated by libertarians as well as the belief that there are no positive rights, i.e. there is nothing morally wrong with ignoring people in peril will always strike a lot of people as out there.

There's a difference between saying there's no positive rights and saying that it's not morally wrong to ignore people in trouble. One can think that a person has no right to force another person to help them but still assert that the other person should help them. For example if someone is being attacked by thugs then does that person have a right to make me risk my life trying to get rid of the thugs? I would say no, but I would say doing anything in my power to stop it would be the right thing to do.

[Gustaf]

Saying that income tax should not be paid on wages is definitely crazy.

My main complaint about taxing wages as income is that they do it twice - once every paycheck and once a year at income tax time. Pick one way or the other and stick with it as far as I'm concerned.

The kind of reduction of the government advocated by libertarians as well as the belief that there are no positive rights, i.e. there is nothing morally wrong with ignoring people in peril will always strike a lot of people as out there.

There's a difference between saying there's no positive rights and saying that it's not morally wrong to ignore people in trouble. One can think that a person has no right to force another person to help them but still assert that the other person should help them. For example if someone is being attacked by thugs then does that person have a right to make me risk my life trying to get rid of the thugs? I would say no, but I would say doing anything in my power to stop it would be the right thing to do.

You're complicating the issue now. There is a difference between those two things yes, but the dividing line is still sharp. The question is not what happens when your own safety etc is involved, but if it's not. Let's say you lose nothing except maybe some time. The question is then whether a person in need has a right to help, can make some sort of moral demand on you for your help, or whether he is at your mercy. Note that laws do not necessarily come into it, since one could leave this up to private charities if one wanted.

[12th Doctor]

Corporate, though political is damn close. Political welfare could at least theoretically be used to even the playing field, though of course usually it isn't. Corporate welfare on the other hand goes against free market principles and gives certain companies advantages they shouldn't have over their competitors, and often it's to companies that don't even need it.

But John, by eliminating political welfare we could elect more third parties that would do away with corporate welfare.

Sure, let's jsut ignore the fact that the reason the two parties have a monopoly is because no one wanted to vote for the 3rd Parties in the first place.  Now, at this point, I'm sure someone is going to say "But back then they didn't know and in this new age of mass media..." to which I will respond, bullsh**t.  The only time a strong 3rd Party has ever arisen is when one of the two major parties have collapsed (such as the rise of the Republicans follwing the Whigs) or when an issue arises that is not adaquetly address by either of the major parties.  Since neither of the two major parties is on the verge of collapsing (which usually only happens when there is a major irreconcilble difference in the party) it isn't happening that way, and what would fill the vacuum would just be another major party anyway, I don't see the two party system being broken that way.  Major third parties (such as the Progressives) usually rose based on a few issues that the other parties didn't want to touch.  Either those issues ran out of steam, or they were adopted by one fo the two major parties, and thus those parties collapsed.

The rise of the 3rd Parties was almost always do to some local factor.  In this age where everything has been not only nationalized, but globalized, I see it as highly doubtful a strong 3rd Party challenge could be mounted.

Face it... the reason most people don't vote Libertarian, or Green, or Constitution is because they are extreme parties with extreme stances that are only serious on a handful of issues and they simply don't appeal to most Americans.

[David S]

Saying that income tax should not be paid on wages is definitely crazy.

And yet the United States existed for more years without an income tax than it has existed with an income tax.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No one said we should ignore people in need. We should be willing to voluntarily help our fellow man. But giving government the power to take money from people who earned it and give it to someone else is a different matter.  Think of Opebo's claim that government should provide "generous welfare benefits for those who choose not to work." In other words, people who work should have their hard earned money taken from them and given to lazy people who don't want to work. Does that seem fair?

[Gabu]

In other words, people who work should have their hard earned money taken from them and given to lazy people who don't want to work. Does that seem fair?

No.  But on that note, would it seem fair for someone who tries very hard to earn a living but simply can't catch a break to simply be thrown to the wayside and ignored because he or she had unfortunate circumstances in life?

The attitude among many people that all citizens on welfare are simply lazy bums who don't want to work is quite disgusting, frankly - no offense.

[David S]

In other words, people who work should have their hard earned money taken from them and given to lazy people who don't want to work. Does that seem fair?

No.  But on that note, would it seem fair for someone who tries very hard to earn a living but simply can't catch a break to simply be thrown to the wayside and ignored because he or she had unfortunate circumstances in life?

The attitude among many people that all citizens on welfare are simply lazy bums who don't want to work is quite disgusting, frankly - no offense.

Not all of them are but some of them are. I think you are a generous person. What makes you think there would not be enough voluntary contributions to fund it for people who are truly in need?   Why does it have to be the government that does it? Do you think other people will only give money when forced to do so by government?

[MaC]

Face it... the reason most people don't vote Libertarian, or Green, or Constitution is because they are extreme parties with extreme stances that are only serious on a handful of issues and they simply don't appeal to most Americans.

No, that's wrong the reason most people don't vote for a third party is because they think it's a wasted vote.

[dazzleman]

In other words, people who work should have their hard earned money taken from them and given to lazy people who don't want to work. Does that seem fair?

No.  But on that note, would it seem fair for someone who tries very hard to earn a living but simply can't catch a break to simply be thrown to the wayside and ignored because he or she had unfortunate circumstances in life?

The attitude among many people that all citizens on welfare are simply lazy bums who don't want to work is quite disgusting, frankly - no offense.

I wouldn't say it's disgusting -- it's an attitude that is borne of frustration with welfare advocates who don't want to acknowledge that the programs they advocate are being abused, which they are.

Often, people end up on welfare due to poor choices and poor decisions, sometimes coupled with laziness that prevents them from overcoming the effects of their decisions.  Welfare becomes a trap, and they develop "the attitude," which I have seen firsthand many times.  "The attitude" is a big part of why so many people hate welfare recipients.

Many on welfare are handicapped in some way, generally mentally, due to drug addiction, some form of mental illness, etc.  I don't think it's realistic to think that long-term welfare is for average people who just suffered from some bad luck.  People like that recover, and get back on their feet eventually.

[Gabu]

I wouldn't say it's disgusting -- it's an attitude that is borne of frustration with welfare advocates who don't want to acknowledge that the programs they advocate are being abused, which they are.

Often, people end up on welfare due to poor choices and poor decisions, sometimes coupled with laziness that prevents them from overcoming the effects of their decisions.  Welfare becomes a trap, and they develop "the attitude," which I have seen firsthand many times.  "The attitude" is a big part of why so many people hate welfare recipients.

Many on welfare are handicapped in some way, generally mentally, due to drug addiction, some form of mental illness, etc.  I don't think it's realistic to think that long-term welfare is for average people who just suffered from some bad luck.  People like that recover, and get back on their feet eventually.

Of course welfare gets abused now and then, but I'm talking about people who take it to the extreme, who think that no one would ever need welfare in a totally free market, who think that people on welfare are just lazy bums who want to be on welfare, etc., etc.

[dazzleman]

I wouldn't say it's disgusting -- it's an attitude that is borne of frustration with welfare advocates who don't want to acknowledge that the programs they advocate are being abused, which they are.

Often, people end up on welfare due to poor choices and poor decisions, sometimes coupled with laziness that prevents them from overcoming the effects of their decisions.  Welfare becomes a trap, and they develop "the attitude," which I have seen firsthand many times.  "The attitude" is a big part of why so many people hate welfare recipients.

Many on welfare are handicapped in some way, generally mentally, due to drug addiction, some form of mental illness, etc.  I don't think it's realistic to think that long-term welfare is for average people who just suffered from some bad luck.  People like that recover, and get back on their feet eventually.

Of course welfare gets abused now and then, but I'm talking about people who take it to the extreme, who think that no one would ever need welfare in a totally free market, who think that people on welfare are just lazy bums who want to be on welfare, etc., etc.

I think the problem is deeper than you think.  Welfare is a trap, and many of those who are on it longer-term set up their lives so they have no choice other than to be on it.  Many are lazy bums who want to be on welfare.

I don't favor eliminating the whole system, but I think abuse of the system is the rule rather than the exception, and the easy availability of welfare has enabled a lot of destructive social trends.