I guess I can't grasp the idea of having things in my possession that I didn't work for. You also refer to taxation as being a solution to the problem, and that is most certainly taking what I have worked for. There's no more direct way to do it. Now you could argue that people who have benefitted more from society should pay higher taxes. To that I would say that as a small business owner in Maine, I pay (at least) my fair share. And since I stated earlier that I believe that the government is an inefficient allocator of the resources thay take from me, it seems ludicrous to say higher taxes are the answer.
I guess I can't grasp the idea of having things in my possession that I didn't work for.
You also refer to taxation as being a solution to the problem, and that is most certainly taking what I have worked for. There's no more direct way to do it. Now you could argue that people who have benefitted more from society should pay higher taxes. To that I would say that as a small business owner in Maine, I pay (at least) my fair share. And since I stated earlier that I believe that the government is an inefficient allocator of the resources thay take from me, it seems ludicrous to say higher taxes are the answer.
Goddamn it, where did I say higher taxes was the answer? I only said that taxation has been a part of every functioning economic system. Wealth redistribution has been a part of every capitalist system, and it is really the condition of getting free markets off the ground (which is why capitalism has been so hard to get going in Paraguay, for example.)
Let me help you with your first confusion: have you heard of Paris Hilton? Simple example.
I am not arguing that YOU have things in your possession that you did not work for (though I do think that given our exploitative relation with the third world, we are all implicated in this). That's something for you to figure out, and I agree it's hard.
In the fight between you and the world, back the world. --Kafka The Logic of Long Distance
Jeff, if Sam Walton were still alive, should he get to keep everything he possesed? He would have been considered uber-wealthy, I suppose. Did he "work" for it all? I don't know, I guess it again depends on definition. But he made decisions that turned out to be correct and he put everything at risk for success. For that I say he deserves every dime he had, regardless of whether it can be directly attributed to "work". Regardless of how you feel about Wal-Mart and their practices, I don't think he was given anything, and I'm not aware that he had any particular advantages over other people in his day.
MTA: This is rhetorical, you don't really need to respond to this. After reading your post above, it's clear that you are focused, however, on a certain segment of society. But who can judge who deserves what? I suppose Paris Hilton definitely is a case that proves your point, but again I'd say the people that clearly fit that definition or few and far between, as opposed to the small business owners who have tried to build things for their families, businesses and employees. By the way, you didn't say that higher taxation was the only answer, but you did say it was an answer. And when you say that you are not talking about taking possession of things that I worked for, but talking about higher taxation (therby taking more of what I have earned) you seem to be contradicting yourself.
mr train you are a pain, your words - they make me go insane
they strike my ever-thinking brain like little drops of acid rain
oh, to my life you are a bane; crazy, mixed up, mr train - r2e
I'll agree with you in the sense that it is just partisan politics, which both sides engage in. Not only is it wrong but it accomplishes nothing. Now, to this.... How do we measure this? What is proper? What is labor? How much wealth is enough? Are we obligated to spend the fruits of our labor on people who are not willing to labor themselves? How do we decide who is trying and failing and who is simply not trying? MTA: And how do we work through the simple fact that time after time the government has proven that they are the last entity that should be managing our money / wealth / property? Why enable them to mismanage even more?
I'll agree with you in the sense that it is just partisan politics, which both sides engage in. Not only is it wrong but it accomplishes nothing.
Now, to this....
How do we measure this?
What is proper?
What is labor?
How much wealth is enough?
Are we obligated to spend the fruits of our labor on people who are not willing to labor themselves?
How do we decide who is trying and failing and who is simply not trying?
MTA:
And how do we work through the simple fact that time after time the government has proven that they are the last entity that should be managing our money / wealth / property? Why enable them to mismanage even more?
Yes, good questions, all. Lockean questions. Obama is also asking these questions. Having the right questions is the place to start.
Your "simple" fact is complicated by the fact that it was the government that freed the slaves, established desegragation here in the south, etc, etc. Many people were pissed about this use of their tax money. Government also makes poor decisions with our money, like going to war based on a lie. Your position is the extremely radical one that all government should be disbanded. Are you an anarchist?
I'm not aware that he had any particular advantages over other people in his day.
Especially not the Chinese in their factories.
Nice Ass!
39,500 Miles Later
A Saucy Wench
Today's definition of irony: A bunch of guys arguing about the definition of "work" while at work, not working.
heh
I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets
"It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds" - Captain Hammer
"I don't care how old I live! I just want to be LIVING while I am living - Jack LaLanne. "When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7I failed the 12 minute run at 15...BQ'd at 38
Prince of Fatness
Your position is the extremely radical one that all government should be disbanded.
To use your words, "Show me where I've said this".
There is a long dark road ahead of me.
POD
and Jeff - taxation to most of us means taking hard earned dollars in hopes they will be used properly for the public good. Most often not the case. Currently most of us believe we are already taxed high enough. Taxation coupled with wealth redistribution implies to us simpletons "take more from the "rich" (arbitrarily defined by those in power currently) and give to the poor based on someone's decision of who is and who is not needy which inevitably leads to corruption and worse. When you use these words that is what I see.
And I will read Locke more than just the overview I have had in the past. I tend to enjoy learning from the author's own words. That may make this monumental discussion worth my while.
And I will read Locke more than just the overview I have had in the past. I tend to enjoy learning from the author's own words.
The two pages I read from Jeff's link were hard to decipher and sexist. It was like it was written 200 years ago.
We've Got Big Hills
Currently most of us believe we are already taxed high enough. Taxation coupled with wealth redistribution implies to us simpletons "take more from the "rich" (arbitrarily defined by those in power currently) and give to the poor based on someone's decision of who is and who is not needy which inevitably leads to corruption and worse.
What I currently see is this:
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
I'm sure there is a Cliff's notes version from a source you can trust like Rush Limbaugh.
Explain how this:
entails a different conclusion.
Government can't be the only answer to the problem, but it is one of the few institutions in American life that has close to the power that the richest institutions in American life have. So, it must play a role.
What I currently see is this: My property tax dollars are being used to support the NFL and the Titans' owner. My property and state taxes are not being used to address the dismal educational system Because I spend these dollars on taxes, I have nothing leftover for a private education for my kiddos I understand redistribution as taking away from the super rich and giving to society in a way that supports the middle class
1) Representative government listens to the will of the people. we had the same issue (albeit a smaller scale) in Evansville and grass roots killed it and then voted out those that tried to ram it through. I was one of those rabble to voice my opinion.
2) see #1
3) agreed but see #1
4) super rich is a moving target defined by those in power to suit their ends and how/why does the middle class get a first cut in front of the poor if these dollars are confiscated?
© 2012 RunningAHEAD.com. All rights reserved. | Privacy