You can respond to me instead.Originally Posted by RandBlade
You can respond to me instead.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
So if say, a writer, doesn't make enough money to cover the cost of treating their medical issues, yet doesn't seek other avenues of income, would it still be okay for them to receive financial assistance in the form of welfare from the state?
. . .
Okay, then are you proposing a welfare safety net where the government is interviewing applicants with questions like, "If you're sexually active, do you practice birth control? Do you smoke/drink/gamble? Do you have a cell phone/cable tv/internet? Do you buy fast food or eat at restaurants? Do you buy junk foods or snack foods or soda? Do you use public transportation or drive a car? If you have enough cash to buy diapers or groceries, but not both, which would you choose?
After the interview, if they meet your standards for public assistance of some type, are you also willing to employ the Social Workers needed for follow-up, home visits, breathalyzers or piss tests, and review their household budget and expenditures? Because that's what you'd have to do in the kind of system you're describing. Where the "lazy, drinking, gambling, smoking, baby-popping" people get weeded out.
So you were lying.
Respond to which? That "here [in the UK] that most living on the system are abusing it."? No I don't have any proof of that, just my experience and anecdotal, nor do I suspect that anyone has any proof that the claim is not right.
I've got no fundamental objection to our NHS as I've said quite a few times.
No, I'm not proposing that.
hi, why is the burden of proof NOT on YOU?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Bump for Lewk.
You say it's not about choosing to be poor, but making bad choices that make them poor. That's contradictory.
You believe the power to change comes from the individual, but you don't seem to understand that poverty is a global group problem. And it's got political implications.
That's why the US has illegal immigration. If Mexico was a prospering nation with plenty of good paying jobs and a healthy middle class, we wouldn't see people risking life and limb jumping borders....just to work for peanuts cutting grass or cleaning toilets, while bunking with 10 other people in a 2-bedroom apartment.
Yemen, Tunisia, and Egypt are more living proof of what entrenched poverty can mean. Poverty can grow into social unrest and political coups. They don't want to keep themselves poor.
Politically speaking, you probably think US society (and government) is wasting time and money by "enabling" their lifestyle. By helping poor people to be fed, sheltered, educated, and safe....while they look for gainful employment....you think they're being coddled?
You may as well say my township or county police force is "enabling" me not to have a loaded shot gun at my front door, or a pistol under my pillow at all times. I'm being coddled because I don't have to worry too much about roving hungry people, or rampant crime that comes from desperate people.
If our economy worsens, and unemployment doesn't improve, and police and teachers are laid off en masse, and austerity plans simply cut off millions of people from food, housing or energy assistance, or basic medical care.....we'd ALL have to reconsider the gun thing.
Is that what you want?
Rand, try to remember that the US isn't like the UK. We don't have a national health service open to everyone, just Medicaid for "poor people". Even now, there's a debate about whether our tax money should fund comprehensive sex-ed and birth control in public schools. Then there's the abortion issue.....
When you talk of living on "the system" with fraud or abuse, Americans and Britons have a different perspective. Perhaps, since you have a NHS, plus council housing, and an EMA and transportation subsidies, you think poor people already have enough resources. They just aren't using the resources "properly", or they're expecting too much?
In the US, it's fairly difficult to qualify for Medicaid, section 8 housing, energy assistance, WIC or food stamps. We also don't have decent public transit systems in all states. (We have more places where one can't walk or bike to work, or take a train or bus, and is forced to rely on a car. That means gas, maintenance, insurance, and sometimes paying toll road fees. It's not uncommon for Americans to commute 100 or more miles to work, one way.)
Would that be like you driving to Scotland or Ireland for a minimum wage job, just to have a job, even though you barely break even?
I'm not trying to win a court case, just stating my beliefs, which I have plenty of anecdotal evidence for, which is why I believe it.hi, why is the burden of proof NOT on YOU?
Anecdote alert: For Wed this week I'd arranged 8 interviews from the JobCentre (unemployed welfare claimants). 3 turned up, 5 no shows to the interview. Of those 3 I decided to give an opportunity to 2 - one who hasn't held a job in 3 years and one who hasn't in six months. Neither started. 8 interviews from welfare, no people working. What a waste of my time, as always.
Public transport outside of big cities here is not a way to get about either. At least you're not paying 129.9p/litre I suspect. I filled my tank yesterday - £65. But given how many miles you guys apparently have to travel it would make sense to drive smaller, cheaper and more fuel efficient cars wouldn't it? Is that what happens?Rand, try to remember that the US isn't like the UK. We don't have a national health service open to everyone, just Medicaid for "poor people". Even now, there's a debate about whether our tax money should fund comprehensive sex-ed and birth control in public schools. Then there's the abortion issue.....
When you talk of living on "the system" with fraud or abuse, Americans and Britons have a different perspective. Perhaps, since you have a NHS, plus council housing, and an EMA and transportation subsidies, you think poor people already have enough resources. They just aren't using the resources "properly", or they're expecting too much?
In the US, it's fairly difficult to qualify for Medicaid, section 8 housing, energy assistance, WIC or food stamps. We also don't have decent public transit systems in all states. (We have more places where one can't walk or bike to work, or take a train or bus, and is forced to rely on a car. That means gas, maintenance, insurance, and sometimes paying toll road fees. It's not uncommon for Americans to commute 100 or more miles to work, one way.)
Would that be like you driving to Scotland or Ireland for a minimum wage job, just to have a job, even though you barely break even?
I'm not pretending to talk about an Anerican perspective, my views are British.
Uhm, you quoted me Rand, but I don't see any reply.
Problem with replying on iPhone, I misclicked. Look now.
Oh! Is that what was happening in my Site Discussion question?
I see your reply now. Gosh, this is messy.
We are paying between $3 and $4 dollars per gallon. I drive a tiny import with good gas mileage, and it costs me over $30 to fill my tank. If I was working at state minimum wage ($7.10/hour) it'd take working 4 hours to fill my tank. Even with a fuel efficient car, if I have to drive 100 miles one way, I'm behind.Public transport outside of big cities here is not a way to get about either. At least you're not paying 129.9p/litre I suspect. I filled my tank yesterday - £65. But given how many miles you guys apparently have to travel it would make sense to drive smaller, cheaper and more fuel efficient cars wouldn't it? Is that what happens?
And my views are American. Check.I'm not pretending to talk about an Anerican perspective, my views are British.
No, but then you don't have to prove a negative so they don't need it.
The reality is that no one knows what proportion of people are abusing the system. Another thing that we don't know about general poverty is to what extent it can be blamed on lazy, irresponsible people with an entitlement complex and to what extent it can be blamed on circumstances, the system, etc. Anyone who says there's no such thing as systematic poverty is either willfully blind, lying or an idiot. On the other hand, we know perfectly well that the right set of character traits can take someone born into poverty and make them wealthy, because there's plenty of known examples in public life. So, obviously, there's elements of truth to both explanations just as we know that some people on benefits honestly need them and some are just playing the system for everything can get. We just don't know the exact proportion of each. 90/10%, 10/90% - we have no way of knowing.
So when people come along and say "I have the answer! People are poor because of [laziness/circumstances] and the universal solution is for [people to stop being lazy/to try and improve their circumstances]!" it's pretty dubious.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
J.K. Rowling was a single welfare mother for a while. In hindsight she must have been "worthy", since her books eventually made her a very rich woman by enriching the reading imaginations of millions of kids.
If she'd been an occasional gambler, drinker, or smoker, folks like Rand might have denied her (and her children) welfare. Her books might never have been written with that mindset.
It is my belief, based on these forms, that Rand is a flaming closet homosexual.
Who is also an asshole that hates poor people.
This isn't a court of law, nobody needs to prove anything. I believe what I believe based on the evidence I've seen and the experiences I've had and the people I know. I've shared that here openly.
Very fairly written. Indeed it's not 100% either way.The reality is that no one knows what proportion of people are abusing the system. Another thing that we don't know about general poverty is to what extent it can be blamed on lazy, irresponsible people with an entitlement complex and to what extent it can be blamed on circumstances, the system, etc. Anyone who says there's no such thing as systematic poverty is either willfully blind, lying or an idiot. On the other hand, we know perfectly well that the right set of character traits can take someone born into poverty and make them wealthy, because there's plenty of known examples in public life. So, obviously, there's elements of truth to both explanations just as we know that some people on benefits honestly need them and some are just playing the system for everything can get. We just don't know the exact proportion of each. 90/10%, 10/90% - we have no way of knowing.
Agreed, there is no universal solution.So when people come along and say "I have the answer! People are poor because of [laziness/circumstances] and the universal solution is for [people to stop being lazy/to try and improve their circumstances]!" it's pretty dubious.
I've never said we should deny welfare. I would take the example of Rowling* and spin it on it's head: Why should she be punished for working hard. Though she is an extreme example and is rich enough not to worry about tax, it's those who improve their lot but not by so much that suffer the most.
* Rowling herself is very much a lefty.
This isn't a court of law, nobody needs to prove anything. I believe what I believe based on the evidence I've seen and the experiences I've had and the people I know. I've shared that here openly.
Very fairly written. Indeed it's not 100% either way.The reality is that no one knows what proportion of people are abusing the system. Another thing that we don't know about general poverty is to what extent it can be blamed on lazy, irresponsible people with an entitlement complex and to what extent it can be blamed on circumstances, the system, etc. Anyone who says there's no such thing as systematic poverty is either willfully blind, lying or an idiot. On the other hand, we know perfectly well that the right set of character traits can take someone born into poverty and make them wealthy, because there's plenty of known examples in public life. So, obviously, there's elements of truth to both explanations just as we know that some people on benefits honestly need them and some are just playing the system for everything can get. We just don't know the exact proportion of each. 90/10%, 10/90% - we have no way of knowing.
Agreed, there is no universal solution.So when people come along and say "I have the answer! People are poor because of [laziness/circumstances] and the universal solution is for [people to stop being lazy/to try and improve their circumstances]!" it's pretty dubious.
I've never said we should deny welfare. I would take the example of Rowling* and spin it on it's head: Why should she be punished for working hard. Though she is an extreme example and is rich enough not to worry about tax, it's those who improve their lot but not by so much that suffer the most.
* Rowling herself is very much a lefty.
Taxes aren't a punishment and shouldn't be viewed as such, they are the payments we make as people for having lived in a functional society, and for the prospect of continuing to live in a functional society that requires a government. You can certainly feel that you are taxed too much in comparison to how much you've benefited or not from society, or how that tax money is spent, but labeling it as punishment or suffering just seems to reek of either selfishness or lacking perspective.
. . .
....
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
A payment is a fixed price, a cost for something. Taxes are not that. Income tax is punitive, take the example of someone struggling to make ends meet who takes some overtime/a second job - the government confiscates off them much of the extra income they work longer to earn. That is not a payment: Had they not done that overtime/taken a second job etc then they wouldn't have lost that income. Even on a minimum wage job people lose much of their income from tax and pay more the more they earn, that is not a payment.
To label it a payment and ignore the punishment or suffering just seems to reek of either selfishness or lacking perspective.
do they take all the money or does the poor worker get to keep some of it, maybe even all of it??
how much of their income do typical minimum-wage workers pay in income tax?
why does payment have to be fixed, or be the same for everyone?? do you think bus-companies punish people for bitter being students or senior-citizens?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No, they don't keep all of it, just some.
In the UK it is a marginal rate of 32% in direct taxation plus a loss of benefits can make it almost 90%how much of their income do typical minimum-wage workers pay in income tax?
The bus company don't increase their prices the longer you work.why does payment have to be fixed, or be the same for everyone?? do you think bus-companies punish people for bitter being students or senior-citizens?
I'll give you an example. One poor person doesn't save a money during their lifetime. When they become old, they get into a nursing home without having to pay a penny. Meanwhile, another poor person who managed to save money will get put into that same nursing home but have to give up that money. Before they get sent into a nursing home, the first poor person will get Medicaid, allowing him to get healthcare for free. The second person will have to pay for their healthcare.
Hope is the denial of reality
Wow, meanwhile in the US I hear half of all income earners don't pay ANYTHING in income taxes... or something
What are you talking about? If I take the bus and then decide I want to take the bus twice as often clearly I will have to pay more for bus fares. And the longer distances I travel, or the more zones I traverse, the more I will get the privilege of paying. I am punished for taking the bus, it'd probably be better if I just stayed homeThe bus company don't increase their prices the longer you work.
How does any of that translate to "lefties don't give a shit"?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Lefties created this system and lefties are the ones who insist that wealth should be a key determinant when it comes to providing aid.
Hope is the denial of reality
Well, that's not the case here. Someone on minimum wage is paying roughly £2 (well over $3) per hour in direct taxation.
That's very bizzare logic. No, the more you use the service the more they charge you - but that is increasing payments for increased service, which is not the case with taxation. If I was hourly-paid then whether I work 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 or more hours in a week I do not receive 2, 3 or more times the service from the goverment despite paying twice, three times or more taxation. In fact the irony is that those who use governmental-services the most pay the least and vice-versa. Those rich enough to pay for private schooling pay the taxes for state schooling, those rich enough for private healthcare (UK-talk where its a tiny minority, not US) pay the most into the NHS, I pay for my mortgage but my taxes support those in state-housing etcWhat are you talking about? If I take the bus and then decide I want to take the bus twice as often clearly I will have to pay more for bus fares. And the longer distances I travel, or the more zones I traverse, the more I will get the privilege of paying. I am punished for taking the bus, it'd probably be better if I just stayed home
All effort and support goes into the person who never saved a penny, penalising the other guy.How does any of that translate to "lefties don't give a shit"?
Now hang on, the alternative scenario is that one poor person saves nothing and the other poor person saves a little. And then they become old and sick and abandoned by their kids who're being forced to run their own rat-race. The second poor person pays way too much for inordinately expensive and unnecessary (or down-right dangerous) healthcare and then gets doomed to living in a nursing home where they are subjected to polypharmacy of the worst sort, maybe manages to pay for that for a while and then in the end is left with no money. What happens to these two poor people when their money runs out? Do righties give a shit about that? Maybe we shouldn't pretend that emotionally loaded accusations are rational. RB said what he said to bait people.
And let's not forget that righties created the system of ridiculously and unnecessarily expensive and shoddy healthcare you have over there
In the meantime the second poor person probably enjoyed a better life than the first, right up until his nursing home admission. So his work was not for naught
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Taxes are a taking, Illusions, they are not a payment. There is a very clear and reasonable distinction between the two. Payments are a choice. The alternative to paying might not be a very good choice, but it is available. There is no choice in taxes. Even if you try not to pay, the government can and will force it from you anyway. There is no choice available to you, no chance to opt to do something else instead. You can insist all you want that it's not a punishment but you cannot claim they are not a taking.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Rand you do realize that having a functioning society is a service provided by the government, your ability to earn and spend money with actual value is another, minimum wage yet another, etc. etc., I really don't think you have a good perspective on what the government enables you to do.
Oh for...
...you can opt out of taxes by opting out of society. In order to have that money in the first place you have to have somehow participated in a society run by a government. That money itself also only has value because of the existence and recognition of its backing government.
Last edited by Illusions; 01-31-2011 at 06:07 PM.
. . .
That ignores the different taxation levels that could accomplish similar goals.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote