Poke holes in my Social Welfare Idea

[57classic]

I typed past my 20 min. allotment to edit my above post!

We have hired teenagers and given them entry level tasks, sweep out the shop, wash the equipment, some get it, some don’t and when they are shown what they miss, they get testy.

The parents are not giving these kids household chores which translates into kids not knowing how to take instruction from an employer.

The employer has the money to pay for the job. The employee does not deserve the job but the employee does deserve the pay if the employee does the job to the employer’s reasonable satisfaction.

In addition, every employer we talk to says the same thing, people just don’t know how to work anymore. Wait staff at eating establishments rarely know about service anymore, mechanics don’t tighten bolts and nuts down so they don’t come loose. Trade schools turn out technicians that can’t run a manual screwdriver. The contractor doesn’t show up until 10 am, leaves at 4 pm and bills for all the time unpacking and packing up tools and getting back to the place where he left off. Factories don’t quality check the work: The windshield fell out of my husband’s combine the first time he used it after it had been delivered from the factory. (Don’t you wish you could see a picture of that face?) This is a $500,000 piece of equipment, you would think they would get it right. I know everybody has experiences where they wonder just how bad is it going to get before parents notice their kids can’t do anything constructive, and schools realize they have failed to turn out people who can earn their own living.

 

[Sunbreak]

Having said that, I also don’t care for people abusing their right to vote to take away anybody else’s hard earned money.

The 1% does this all the time. Did the bank bail out benefit us regular folks? No. The banks are making more money and charge us more fees and we can earn almost nothing in interest. The 1% also funds the superpacs which influence elections. So it’s the folks with money who abuse their voting rights.

 

[57classic]

The 1% does this all the time. Did the bank bail out benefit us regular folks? No. The banks are making more money and charge us more fees and we can earn almost nothing in interest. The 1% also funds the superpacs which influence elections. So it’s the folks with money who abuse their voting rights.

I disagreed with every bail out, every stimulus package they put in place. The corrupt politicians should be in jail and their ill gotten gains put back in the treasury to go against the national debt. If they wanted a stimulus package to work, they should have given the money to taxpayers so they could pay off their debts at the banks, now that might have worked for a minute.
People who have money employ people. Politicians are just leaches, vampires and pond scum.

 

[Sparkythedog]

You lecture me on how to manage hired help, don’t you think that if a person says they can do something during the interview, they should be able to do that thing? Don’t you think that if a person tells their employer they HAVE done a task, that task should be DONE? Is it ok to lie to get and keep a job? There is no honor or self respect or workers would take pride in a job well done and pay actually EARNED.

People have lied during interviews as long as there have been interviews. That’s why God invented references. Vetting prospective employees is a skill that needs to be developed like any other. The ability to manage people is also a skill that develops over time.

I don’t mean to be harsh, but every time I hear a manager complain that every subordinate under them has a problem working, the actual source of the problem usually turns out to be their management abilities. I’m not saying this is necessarily the case for you, but something to consider.

I’ve worked in a wide range of positions and with a range of people and I have not seen this blanket laziness or incompetence that you’ve describe. Not to say that I haven’t seen it in some cases. But I think this idea that america is sinking into a quagmire of apathy is unfounded.

 

[57classic]

People have lied during interviews as long as there have been interviews. That’s why God invented references. Vetting prospective employees is a skill that needs to be developed like any other. The ability to manage people is also a skill that develops over time.

I don’t mean to be harsh, but every time I hear a manager complain that every subordinate under them has a problem working, the actual source of the problem usually turns out to be their management abilities. I’m not saying this is necessarily the case for you, but something to consider.

I’ve worked in a wide range of positions and with a range of people and I have not seen this blanket laziness or incompetence that you’ve describe. Not to say that I haven’t seen it in some cases. But I think this idea that america is sinking into a quagmire of apathy is unfounded.

I must live in pie in the sky land. Or maybe I am old enough to remember even the teachers trying to impress work ethics into our hormone addled heads. It’s not just an ‘good old days’ thing, I do know young people who work hard to impress prospective employers, they are few and far between and most of them are 4-H members or alumni. Others have had limited screen time, television, phones and games. Every one has had chores to do at home and have been taught respect: first fear of the Lord, respect themselves and respect parents and elders.

I will wager you will now notice incompetence more often since I have pointed it out instead of shrugging it off or stretching into a pretzel to make an excuse for the person.

 

[57classic]

I apologize for having hijacked the thread. I’ll be quiet now.

 

[on_the_hill]

.

So, because you didn’t answer my question directly, am I right in assuming you do feel its OK to vote yourself someone else’s money?

I don’t have a problem with it. It’s how society works.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Depends how you look at the statement. Yes, state money is “the people’s money”, but not all people contribute, thus, if they vote for a tax increase on those that do contribute, while they do not contribute, then they are in fact voting themselves someone else’s money, if they will receive that money.

There are programs that help everyone, like legislation to ensure clean water, or help pay for schools, etc. The context of my question is specifically related to one person who does not pay taxes voting to increase the taxes of someone else. Seems a bit like legalized stealing, thus the point of my original question, which you didn’t answer. Same principle applies to voting for increased property taxes when one does not own property…is it moral? Its certainly legal, but is it moral?

So, because you didn’t answer my question directly, am I right in assuming you do feel its OK to vote yourself someone else’s money?

Most people who receive government aid do work to some extent. Many government programs require you to work a minimum number of hours in order to keep receiving benefits. Others require you to meet other requirements such as having children under a certain age.

Many of those who receive government aid but do not work at all are physically or mentally disabled or elderly. These are the people you would be silencing by removing their right to vote.

Furthermore, even if people pay no income tax, they are still contributing to the economic prosperity of their community when they pay for goods and services. Money is still flowing into the community even if it is subsidized by government programs.

There are other non monetary benefits as well. I contribute my tax money to public schools despite not having any children. Though this doesn’t benefit me directly, it does help our society in general to be better educated. So my quality of life is improved by improving the quality of life around me. Similarly, I benefit from keeping others around me healthier, better fed and housed. This keeps down civil unrest and allows those who can work to continue working. And yes, for similar reasons, people who do not own property, absolutely should be able to vote on issues of property rights.

So specifically to your question - I will restate that this is not, as you state, “someone else’s money”. No one is stealing anything from you. These are public funds which we, as a society, have allocated to help those individuals who struggle to be financially independent. Do I think it’s ok that people who receive these benefits vote on policies that affect them? Yes. If we deny someone a voice in their government, we are essentially implementing a poll tax and creating a sub class of citizens, many of them the most vulnerable people in our society.

 

[Bradski]

Depends how you look at the statement. Yes, state money is “the people’s money”, but not all people contribute, thus, if they vote for a tax increase on those that do contribute, while they do not contribute, then they are in fact voting themselves someone else’s money, if they will receive that money.

You seem to think that people vote only to improve their personal financial standing. So if ‘the poor people’ are allowed to vote, then they will simply want to increase taxes to get a larger slice of the pie.

So what happens, based on that premise, if only ‘the rich people’ can vote?

How about a government of the people, by the people and for the people. As opposed to: of the people in work, by the people in work and for the people in work.

If you can’t vote, you effectively have no representation. I seem to remember a few people getting quite irate about that in the mid 18th century.

 

[shockerfan]

And yes, for similar reasons, people who do not own property, absolutely should be able to vote on issues of property rights.

So specifically to your question - I will restate that this is not, as you state, “someone else’s money”. No one is stealing anything from you. These are public funds which we, as a society, have allocated to help those individuals who struggle to be financially independent. Do I think it’s ok that people who receive these benefits vote on policies that affect them? Yes. If we deny someone a voice in their government, we are essentially implementing a poll tax and creating a sub class of citizens, many of them the most vulnerable people in our society.

There is a lot of what you said, that I did not copy here, that I have no issue with. (I do find it interesting that such a simple question required so much writing).

I think we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate, and yes, that includes contributing to the general welfare of the citizenry so that we have some form of a safety net.

I also believe, there is a moral issue with voting to have the government take by force any amount of the money someone else earned. Certainly, taxes are a necessary part of government, but for example in California, all taxes added together results in a person receiving less than half of their income for the work they did, and the government (others) taking more than half for work they did not do. That seems to be a bit immoral.

I think all people need to have “skin in the game”, meaning they should pay something, even if quite minimal. That way they would think twice about raising taxes, and would be more thoughtful about what the tax money will be used for.

 

[shockerfan]

So specifically to your question - I will restate that this is not, as you state, “someone else’s money”. No one is stealing anything from you. These are public funds which we, as a society, have allocated to help those individuals who struggle to be financially independent.

Another question: How do you view a tax cut…is it a “subsidy” that costs the government something? Or, is it the government just not confiscating what is yours?

 

[shockerfan]

You seem to think that people vote only to improve their personal financial standing. So if ‘the poor people’ are allowed to vote, then they will simply want to increase taxes to get a larger slice of the pie.

So what happens, based on that premise, if only ‘the rich people’ can vote?

How about a government of the people, by the people and for the people. As opposed to: of the people in work, by the people in work and for the people in work.

If you can’t vote, you effectively have no representation. I seem to remember a few people getting quite irate about that in the mid 18th century.

I asked a simple question, “Do you feel its OK to vote yourself someone else’s money”. Amazing that asking a simple question will have people read into “what I think”.

What I actually think is that there would be issues with not all people voting, so its not something I support. What I also think is that all people should pay something in taxes, even if minimal, so that everyone has “skin in the game”. If you are going to vote, you need to be impacted, positively AND negatively, depending on what is being voted for.

The idea that one person can reach into another person’s wallet and say “this is our money” seems to me to be immoral. However, if the view is, money from “our wallets” is “our money” that seems to be a bit more reasonable, even if one contributes less than another. Yes, I realize that some people zero income, so you can’t pay taxes on what you don’t have, however, some people do make something, and should pay something in taxes, even if nominal. (I’m specifically referring to income taxes, federal or state)

 

[Bradski]

I asked a simple question, “Do you feel its OK to vote yourself someone else’s money”

Yes, I realize that some people zero income, so you can’t pay taxes on what you don’t have, however, some people do make something, and should pay something in taxes, even if nominal. (I’m specifically referring to income taxes, federal or state)

Every vote you have made has made you an active participant in the distribution of wealth. It is your right whether you are well off enough to have to pay taxes or considered poor enough not to.

I don’t think you have an understanding of what taxes are meant to achieve. Everyone should pay? Whether they can afford it or not? You must chip in to show that you’re part of the team? Otherwise…hey, no vote for you buddy.

How’d it get to No Representation Without Taxation? You’ve done a one eighty. The noise you hear is that of your founding fathers spinning in their graves.

 

[shockerfan]

Every vote you have made has made you an active participant in the distribution of wealth. It is your right whether you are well off enough to have to pay taxes or considered poor enough not to.

I don’t think you have an understanding of what taxes are meant to achieve. Everyone should pay? Whether they can afford it or not? You must chip in to show that you’re part of the team? Otherwise…hey, no vote for you buddy.

How’d it get to No Representation Without Taxation? You’ve done a one eighty. The noise you hear is that of your founding fathers spinning in their graves.

You are creating a straw man. I never said that the poor should not be able to vote, I simply questioned the morality of voting to take money from someone else for your benefit.

It is you, falsely attributing to me, something I did not say (“hey, no vote for you buddy”). I think everybody should have the right to vote…I do think though, there are moral issues with intentional voting yourself a greater share of what is in someone else’s wallet.

The only “one eighty” being done is in you own mind with what you are attributing to me…not with what I actually wrote. Lets try to avoid the straw man, please.

Blessings.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Another question: How do you view a tax cut…is it a “subsidy” that costs the government something? Or, is it the government just not confiscating what is yours?

A tax cut is a reduction in taxes. Subsidies are usually monetary grants given out from a larger pool of money. So no, from what I understand, a tax cut is not considered a subsidy.

 

[Sparkythedog]

There is a lot of what you said, that I did not copy here, that I have no issue with. (I do find it interesting that such a simple question required so much writing).

The reason it requires such a long answer is because your premise is faulty. You seem to think that public money should only belong to those who contribute by directly paying taxes. This is not true. It’s akin to me asking you “When did you stop beating your wife?”

I’ve also given examples of why people may not pay income tax and receive government aid (elderly, sick, physically or mentally disabled, etc.) and how those people do actually contribute to society. Since you didn’t comment on that, I assume you agree.

I think we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate, and yes, that includes contributing to the general welfare of the citizenry so that we have some form of a safety net.

Great.

I also believe, there is a moral issue with voting to have the government take by force any amount of the money someone else earned.

Again, the government is not “taking your money by force”. You have a say in the way the system works. Furthermore, the number of people who pay taxes vastly outnumber those who don’t, so I’m not really sure why you worry that politicians pander to such a small minority.

Certainly, taxes are a necessary part of government, but for example in California, all taxes added together results in a person receiving less than half of their income for the work they did, and the government (others) taking more than half for work they did not do. That seems to be a bit immoral.

As my grade school teachers used to say: “Show your work!”

I think all people need to have “skin in the game”, meaning they should pay something, even if quite minimal. That way they would think twice about raising taxes, and would be more thoughtful about what the tax money will be used for.

So, what’s the minimum “skin” required for someone to be able to vote in your system.

 

[57classic]

So, what’s the minimum “skin” required for someone to be able to vote in your system.

Shockerfan was not the one advocating persons taking government assistance give up their right to vote, it was me. Shocker wants everybody to pay some taxes, I agree with that, many people believe they pay only sales tax not realizing their rent goes up when property taxes go up. If they don’t give up their vote, then they should pay income tax on government assistance.

 

[shockerfan]

A tax cut is a reduction in taxes. Subsidies are usually monetary grants given out from a larger pool of money. So no, from what I understand, a tax cut is not considered a subsidy.

good. there are some people who think all money is the government’s money to begin with and whatever you keep “costs” the government, and is actually a subsidy. We are on the same page here.

 

[shockerfan]

The reason it requires such a long answer is because your premise is faulty. You seem to think that public money should only belong to those who contribute by directly paying taxes. This is not true. It’s akin to me asking you “When did you stop beating your wife?”

Again, you are creating a straw man. Your long answer really did not address what I said, rather it address what you (wrongly) read into it.

I do not think public money only belongs to those who pay in, rather I think there is a moral element to voting. If you are voting for someone else to contribute more so you can get free phones, or free birth control, or free abortions, or free internet, or more unemployment benefits while turning down work you find beneath you, then yes, that is absolutely immoral. However, if you are truly voting for what is best for society, then no moral issues. Rich people also have to face moral questions when voting too (like voting to limit SS benefits to people already retired)…morality applies to all.

I’ve also given examples of why people may not pay income tax and receive government aid (elderly, sick, physically or mentally disabled, etc.) and how those people do actually contribute to society. Since you didn’t comment on that, I assume you agree.

I have no issue with those examples.

Again, the government is not “taking your money by force”.

Try not paying your taxes and see how quick people with guns show up to pay you a visit!

You have a say in the way the system works. Furthermore, the number of people who pay taxes vastly outnumber those who don’t, so I’m not really sure why you worry that politicians pander to such a small minority.

43% of Americans pay no federal income tax…that is not such a “small minority”

taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/federal-taxes-households.cfm

As my grade school teachers used to say: “Show your work!”

top fed income tax rate = 39.6%
top california income tax rate = 13.3%
property taxes (LA County average as an example) = 1.16%
Sales tax in Los Angeles = 9%
Gas tax = 42 cents per gallon
There are other taxes (hotel taxes, cell phone taxes, etc)

Hopefully you get the picture

So, what’s the minimum “skin” required for someone to be able to vote in your system.

To be able to vote? Zero
As a matter of policy? Something? 1/2%? I don’t know for sure…but something? Not enough to keep someone from eating, but enough to know they are in the game.

 

[Mary_Estelle]

If they couldn’t vote, the politicians would not be falling all over themselves to bring new freebies to them in order to get their votes.

I didn’t say I liked the idea of taking away anybody’s rights. Having said that, I also don’t care for people abusing their right to vote to take away anybody else’s hard earned money.

As I said in my next post, we need to have a serious discussion about the definition of poverty. The church should be in the charity business NOT the government. And people should be turning to charity as a last resort not as a way of life.

The Church IS in the charity business. It is the biggest charity in the world. The government is in the habit of constraining the church and the ethical, moral teachings of the Church. Just ask the Little Sisters of the Poor.

A social government is a failed government. Look at France, and the U. K. They are so over regulated and non-productive that they are the new national charity cases of the world. P. S. anyone wanna buy a nice VW? I can add to that: Why do you think there is such a huge influx of immigrants into Europe? Thousands of young men that could have stayed at home to thwart Isis. For the most part they have left their mothers, daughters and wives behind and sucking the life out of Europe. Oh, I know. I am gonna catch it for this last comment. So Be It.