Appealing to emotion because you're losing and trying to offend me. There are numerous charity organisations that can help the poor on a much fairer and better basis than government funds, demotivating people from working to improve their life conditions.
Report me all you want, but you'll have to live with yourself and what you think of other human beings. I was referring to you saying that if poor people would just make better life choices they would be middle class.
The fact that Democrats have been insisting for years that the GOP is "over!!!1" and now they're going to control both houses of Congress + the presidency
But people can't just demand money from rich people because they want it. And taking that through taxation isn't moral. Think about it this way. Three people are sat in a room. 2 people aren't Bill Gates, the other is. They vote 2-1 to take half of his wealth. This is a simplified version of a progressive tax system. I would argue for a flat rate of tax, such that there isn't an argument about paying more or less because each person pays an equal proportion of what they earn.
I agree about Wall St, however. What happened to cause the financial crash is an example of cronyism rather than capitalism. In a capitalist society, the banks would have been made to completely fail. Government cronyism meant that the government guaranteed the debt of the banks using, you guessed it, public taxes. If the banks had been allowed to fail it would have done something to combat the greed of Wall St, and its international counterparts. But because the government (and most governments affected worldwide) bailed the banks out, there wasn't a lesson for them to learn. Sure, a few people went to prison, but the majority of bankers were allowed to carry on with business-as-usual.
But the poor pays more in taxes than the wealthy. That's not fair.
And it's nice to say you want small government (what a lot of conservatives say). But damn you take away public services and the riots from the right will be tragic. That's what I don't get about you guys. The right only wants to have big government where THEY want it to be (Social Security, military, etc.) but when the left wants it (college tuition, paid family leave), all hell breaks loose. "No the Socialists are here to take our money". Yeah right.
The fact that Democrats have been insisting for years that the GOP is "over!!!1" and now they're going to control both houses of Congress + the presidency Dems are eternal losers
We lost not because of some Republican resurgence. Trump got less votes than Romney and McCain (based on the percentage of the population). It's because a lot of people on the left was uninspired by Hillary Clinton. We're still the majority of the country. The voters that propelled Obama to the win didn't do that for Hillary. Instead, they went to Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.
To be fair, though, as amazing as it is that the gay rights movement has made such amazing strides (although, I will note, that it was a conservative government in the UK who brought the gay marriage bill to Parliament), it doesn't change the fact that I don't agree whatsoever with left-wing views of economics. At all. I believe in small government, low taxation and free market capitalism. Those principles just aren't expressed by anyone from the liberal establishment.
Would you classify yourself as a fiscal conversation yet social liberal? You seem to be for gay rights, but other posts I've seen of yours don't suggest you take to kindly to the rights of women or people of color.
Not trying to start something, just genuinely curious!
But the poor pays more in taxes than the wealthy. That's not fair.
And it's nice to say you want small government (what a lot of conservatives say). But damn you take away public services and the riots from the right will be tragic. That's what I don't get about you guys. The right only wants to have big government where THEY want it to be (Social Security, military, etc.) but when the left wants it (college tuition, paid family leave), all hell breaks loose. "No the Socialists are here to take our money". Yeah right.
That first statement just isn't true. At least in my country.
In the UK, the top 1% of earnings pay 28% of all income tax. I'd say the wealthy are more than paying their fair share.
As for small government, you have made a rather sweeping statement about me without knowing my individual views. I think my country needs to roll back the state as far as welfare is concerned, which has gone way too far. I absolutely support my state-funded NHS, and I think it is something we should be proud of. Tuition fees are a complicated issue, and I don't have time to address it here, but it's not as simple as people make it out to be.
Report me all you want, but you'll have to live with yourself and what you think of other human beings. I was referring to you saying that if poor people would just make better life choices they would be middle class.
Because that is the truth. Hard working people from impoverished backgrounds studying for the best grades and then going off to university thanks to scholarships and hard work deserve all the respect they can get. I've got to know a few people like that and I look up to them actually.
If you don't work in any way to be a productive member of the society, then sorry to break your heart honey but you don't deserve anyone's compassion or money.
Would you classify yourself as a fiscal conversation yet social liberal? You seem to be for gay rights, but other posts I've seen of yours don't suggest you take to kindly to the rights of women or people of color.
Not trying to start something, just genuinely curious!
Completely. And as for the rights of women and POC, I absolutely 100% support equality of the sexes and racial equality. My issue is that I don't think governments or social justice campaigners tackle the issues well. I think too often the discussion becomes emotive, and it never actually deals with ways of sorting out problems that exist.
My views align quite closely with those of Ben Shapiro. I think he speaks very reasonably about ways in which POC (in particular) can progress in society without government intervention, but he is always labelled as a racist by the left. Because of that it's impossible to ever have a genuine discussion about the issues and how to fix them.
Just to clarify also, I despise the alt-right. I think it stands for being intentionally controversial, and has basically morphed into the right-wing counterpart of the SJW movement that it set out to oppose in the first place.
That first statement just isn't true. At least in my country.
In the UK, the top 1% of earnings pay 28% of all income tax. I'd say the wealthy are more than paying their fair share.
As for small government, you have made a rather sweeping statement about me without knowing my individual views. I think my country needs to roll back the state as far as welfare is concerned, which has gone way too far. I absolutely support my state-funded NHS, and I think it is something we should be proud of. Tuition fees are a complicated issue, and I don't have time to address it here, but it's not as simple as people make it out to be.
I'm not talking about your life or views. In general, the conservative views are flawed, especially here in the US. They want their taxes to spend half a billion a year to keep 60 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, but we can't use that money to pay for universal pre-K and child care costs? That's absolutely ridiculous. Conservatives are all about them and not thinking about others. Priorities.
Oh and most the gain in wealthy is going to be very rich while the middle class is shrinking (by shrinking I mean more are going into poverty). That is a serious issue.
The reason they aren't over is because a lot of the right-wing movements going on now take along with them a lot of values which were previously seen as "liberal" (e.g. promiscuous sex outside of marriage not being a bad thing, supporting gay marriage, pro-science, anti-religion, EQUALITY of genders, races, etc.).
I think part of the reason right-wing movements are doing so well right now is because they're not socially conservative anymore for the most part. Previously, leftists could use "shame" tactics like calling their opponents racist, but in 2016 this backfires. Calling them religious nuts doesn't work anymore because the right has mostly abandoned religion, or are more moderate about it at least (in the past right-wing people were having to defend Christianity, but in 2016 it's now left-wing people having to defend Islam). Saying they're homophobic doesn't work because so many of them actually support gay marriage now. Most of them have also given in and believe in evolution too, so leftists can't use that.
Also right-wing people are now more sexually liberal than left-wing people, which is a BIG plus because people like sexual freedom at the end of the day. Now left-wing people are the strict ones when it comes to sex (at least heterosexual sex)! Left-wing people believe that if a man TOUCHES a woman when she doesn't want to be touched that it counts as sexual assault, or even rape! Right-wing people believe drunk teenage boys trying to kiss a girl they fancy at a party is normal (albeit a bit rude), whilst left-wing people are the ones giving lectures to boys starting college telling them that such behavior is unacceptable and that they can be disciplined and kicked out of college for it.
Things are changing. It used to be embarrassing for people to say they were right-wing, they'd be associated with religious nuts. But now it's more embarrassing for people to say they're left-wing, because they get associated with SJWs. Religious nuts are now on the out-skirts of society, largely discredited, and rapidly declining in number, most people hardly are aware of them anymore, SJWs, on the other hand, are EVERYWHERE, and are making small changes to society every day, you can't ignore them!
Because that is the truth. Hard working people from impoverished backgrounds studying for the best grades and then going off to university thanks to scholarships and hard work deserve all the respect they can get. I've got to know a few people like that and I look up to them actually.
If you don't work in any way to be a productive member of the society, then sorry to break your heart honey but you don't deserve anyone's compassion or money.
Do you realize that the "rags to riches person" who goes from abject poverty to wealth is the extreme almost never seen exception? Are you able to comprehend the idea that there may be more realities at play in why a person born into poverty and an unstable household who works multiple jobs their entire life may still not be able to compete for the top scholarships or the top corporate jobs?
The point is perfectly fair, though. There is nothing stopping working class or poor people from doing things to be socially upwardly mobile.
One of my closest friends came from a very poor background. He worked his ass off at school, he didn't mess around, he didn't get into trouble and he did really well in his exams. Now he is at a really good university and will probably get a really good job that pays well.
The fact is, as long as education exists, there is nothing stopping people from making good individual decisions to progress in life. In fact, the incentive should be greater. Work hard at school, pay attention in class, don't get into trouble. These aren't difficult things. And they are actions that I have seen happen throughout my life with friends from two schools and two universities.
This is just...
This is basically just long winded bootstrap talk honestly and doesn't take into factor about how people who live in impoverished areas are simply not given the best education to make themselves able to climb. Even that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Do you realize that the "rags to riches person" who goes from abject poverty to wealth is the extreme almost never seen exception? Are you able to comprehend the idea that there may be more realities at play in why a poor person who works multiple jobs their entire life may still not be able to compete for the top scholarships or the top corporate jobs?
these people are so delusional! They will realize it pretty soon: if you're not rich or you don't come from a family with connections, your chances to get top jobs are slim to none.
Capitalism is not fair because it's not really based on competition, it's mainly an oligarchy today, everything is based on connections, starting wealth, etc. That is why communism will rise again, capitalism has failed!
The concept of american dream is now dead, you tell me it's really possible today for an immigrant to go from washing toilets to be a billionaire?
Example: Donald Trump comes from a millionaire family, he employs his kids, who are married with other rich people, and so on. It's the 1% club sistrens
The army or law enforcement isn't socialist, it's necessary means for any state to survive. It's been there way before socialism or capitalism were even invented, simply because no society would have survived without it.
And people have always stood with their feet on the ground, it didn't take Isaac Newton to invent the concept of gravity before it became a fact of life. Law enforcement and the army are socialist programs by definition as they are government owned institutions.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jan
Education is not a right. It's a good or an investment in a better future. For humanitarian reasons, I would support free, basic public schools teaching the overall populace basic stuff about their country. However, attendance should be voluntary and kids who constantly violate the rules and refuse to study should be expelled. High schools and universities should be private and paid for, while maintaining the scholarship system to allow brighter and poorer students to move up.
Attendance should be voluntary? You think a 6 year old would have would be mentally equipped to make such a decision on whether to enrol in school? Thank god people like you are not in power, you'd drive a nation into a ditch of perpetual poverty and ignorance.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jan
I believe that a person's wealth is not to be touched or tampered with. If we are to redistribute one bit of a billionaire's fortune, then why not go a step further and make everyone equal with their money? Simply, because it's his money he worked hard for, earnt and he has the only right to use it as he wishes. Most billionaires support charity organisations anyway. Expropriation is acceptable, however only with compensation equal to the worth of the property or bigger.
Maybe they earned it, maybe the inherited it. Obviously it's not practical to standardise everyone's wealth because we all have different jobs...
Quote:
Originally posted by Jan
Moreover, why should state officials decide where is the wealth necessary and where it is not? There is usually no one responsible for bad government financial decisions, the money is lost and the administration just won't win second term or something like that. The government doesn't need to care about whether a state program is economically efficient or needed or not, because it will receive the tax money anyway.
Wealth is not necessary if your not spending it, that much is obvious.
Quote:
Originally posted by Darren-5-08
As for there being a limit on what people can earn... I disagree fundamentally. I don't think anyone should be in the business of interfering in other people's affairs and telling them what they are 'allowed' to earn. They earned their wealth, they are entitled to it. In order to accumulate so much wealth, they more than likely employed a lot of people, provided a number of goods or services that many other people enjoyed or relied on, and paid a lot of money in tax already. If you cap their earnings, all they will do is stop earning at the cap. Why would they work for free? And in that action they prevent further job and wealth creation.
I think my post was misconstrued. Locke didn't believe earnings should be capped, he believed that wealth, particularly in assets/property has a moral limit. And not at some arbitrary number, but at the point where the excess wealth becomes wasteful. This is the problem with trickle down economic policies, the rich are getting richer and the poorer are getting poorer because they accumulate so much money that they simply can't spend it all. That is why the government must step in for wealth distribution. Pure and unchecked capitalism leads to monopolies and failure.
Do you realize that the "rags to riches person" who goes from abject poverty to wealth is the extreme almost never seen exception? Are you able to comprehend the idea that there may be more realities at play in why a poor person who works multiple jobs their entire life may still not be able to compete for the top scholarships or the top corporate jobs?
Cut out your passive aggressiveness or log out. And you claim to be morally superior than me?
Interestingly enough, I have people in my family who had humble beginnings and educated themselves to become the middle class? Knowing of that experiences, yes I am unable to comprehend that it's impossible, because it's simply not true. The scholarships are for the best and besides, not everyone has to go to university to be successful. Some people may find a niché in the market which they can fill in just about perfectly or just be exceptionally good at a vocational job.
People with mediocre knowledge or abilities will have mediocre wages. That's how it is fair, sorry if it's too brutal for you.
Cut out your passive aggressiveness or log out. And you claim to be morally superior than me?
Interestingly enough, I have people in my family who had humble beginnings and educated themselves to become the middle class? Knowing of that experiences, yes I am unable to comprehend that it's impossible, because it's simply not true. The scholarships are for the best and besides, not everyone has to go to university to be successful. Some people may find a niché in the market which they can fill in just about perfectly or just be exceptionally good at a vocational job.
People with mediocre knowledge or abilities will have mediocre wages. That's how it is fair, sorry if it's too brutal for you.
then why so many immigrants doctors or engineers are taxi drivers? Explain this sis, are they dumb because they come from Asia?
It's not impossible to break the class boundaries, but it's becoming increasingly difficult, and all statistics point to the wealth concentrating more and more in a few hands.
Capitalism and trickle down economics have failed miserably and it's only a matter of time until the poor and the 99% will start to reclaim what's theirs
The reason they aren't over is because a lot of the right-wing movements going on now take along with them a lot of values which were previously seen as "liberal" (e.g. promiscuous sex outside of marriage not being a bad thing, supporting gay marriage, pro-science, anti-religion, EQUALITY of genders, races, etc.).
I think part of the reason right-wing movements are doing so well right now is because they're not socially conservative anymore for the most part. Previously, leftists could use "shame" tactics like calling their opponents racist, but in 2016 this backfires. Calling them religious nuts doesn't work anymore because the right has mostly abandoned religion, or are more moderate about it at least (in the past right-wing people were having to defend Christianity, but in 2016 it's now left-wing people having to defend Islam). Saying they're homophobic doesn't work because so many of them actually support gay marriage now. Most of them have also given in and believe in evolution too, so leftists can't use that.
Also right-wing people are now more sexually liberal than left-wing people, which is a BIG plus because people like sexual freedom at the end of the day. Now left-wing people are the strict ones when it comes to sex (at least heterosexual sex)! Left-wing people believe that if a man TOUCHES a woman when she doesn't want to be touched that it counts as sexual assault, or even rape! Right-wing people believe drunk teenage boys trying to kiss a girl they fancy at a party is normal (albeit a bit rude), whilst left-wing people are the ones giving lectures to boys starting college telling them that such behavior is unacceptable and that they can be disciplined and kicked out of college for it.
Things are changing. It used to be embarrassing for people to say they were right-wing, they'd be associated with religious nuts. But now it's more embarrassing for people to say they're left-wing, because they get associated with SJWs. Religious nuts are now on the out-skirts of society, largely discredited, and rapidly declining in number, most people hardly are aware of them anymore, SJWs, on the other hand, are EVERYWHERE, and are making small changes to society every day, you can't ignore them!
This is all very troubling, as you seem to be excusing - if not altogether ignoring - the legitimate complaints of minorities. Women in particular.
Also, when reproductive rights are still, somehow, on the table , I'm not sure you could accuse the right-wing of becoming more "open-minded."
And people have always stood with their feet on the ground, it didn't take Isaac Newton to invent the concept of gravity before it became a fact of life. Law enforcement and the army are socialist programs by definition as they are government owned institutions.
Attendance should be voluntary? You think a 6 year old would have would be mentally equipped to make such a decision on whether to enrol in school? Thank god people like you are not in power, you'd drive a nation into a ditch of perpetual poverty and ignorance.
Maybe they earned it, maybe the inherited it. Obviously it's not practical to standardise everyone's wealth because we all have different jobs...
Wealth is not necessary if your not spending it, that much is obvious.
1. Not everything owned by the government is socialist. Period. The army and the police are not means of production or wealth redistribution but simple means of maintaining public order. They are necessary if we are not abolishing the idea of a state.
2. I trust that the child's parents should have the power and autonomy to control over what their child is doing. A 6 year old won't go to school himself, let's start with that . It will be forced to do so by his parents for their own good. I'm talking more about people who are 15 year old and have criminal records. There is no point in investing public money in such individuals.
3. It's not your business to decide on whether someone's wealth is necessary to them or not. One should keep their hands in their own pockets.