Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Just Keep Raising Taxes

A Gift from Moose:
"I came across this editorial today, and I sums up rather well what I have tried to say here on your blog and why we butt heads on most topics here...particularly the following:

"If I have to pay a little more with each paycheck to ensure my fellow Americans can access health care? SIGN ME UP. Poverty should not be a death sentence in the richest country in the world. If you’re okay with thousands of people dying of treatable diseases just so the wealthiest among us can hoard still more wealth, there is a divide between our worldviews that can never be bridged."

Liberal Progressive Mindset"

Which reminds me of this Sojourner Piece... Have We Forgotten the Point of Christianity... And here is an exchange we had on FB...

"Christianity is also about charity and giving, not tax and spend. It interesting how some want to help others as long as others are paying for it. I have my usual questions: as a country we already take in ~1 million legal immigrants and refugees per year, we have many people from South America who have needs and are closer, and we have many people millions of people with poor household incomes in the USA. How many of the worlds 5 billion struggling humans do you want to bring in ? What will they do to earn and living? How will this impact our low income workers who are already struggling? I think people who are concerned should be more charitable and help others while they work to improve their own country." G2A

"As usual, your arguments aren't really about the exercise of faith, but about politics." FB1

"My exercising my faith means that I give to charity and help people that I interact with. It is you and the author who want to politicize faith to force people to do what you believe is moral. Instead of asking people to give, pray, volunteer, etc... The author is promoting using our government to tax and fund per his priorities. It reminds me of when the religious right tries to use the government to prevent homosexual activities and abortions." G2A

"Strange, I didn't read that." FB1

" I think his final paragraphs make the point well. So when we’re confronted with national questions regarding refugees, immigrants, racism, national security, the economy, and social justice issues, we must remind ourselves of the old adage: “What Would Jesus Do?” because we already know what he did, and it’s our responsibility to do the exact same thing. God help us.

So back to my questions... Any answers?" G2A

"Nope" FB1
I mean the Liberal Progressive philosophy sounds so simple and perfect. If we just give everyone every thing they need they will be motivated, happy, knowledgeable and work hard to improve and perpetuate our society.  Kind of like living with the 7 dwarves.

That is until the cold light of reality illuminates it's flaws. I mean for 100+ years we have been increasing our taxes big time and giving more care, food, education, housing and healthcare than ever in history.  And what do we have to show for it...  More single parent households than ever, a huge academic achievement gap, people who keep themselves trapped in generational poverty, violent crime in the streets, etc.  I don't think I am excited to double down on the "war on poverty" given how disastrous the first round was...


Anonymous said...

The difference between letting the government use my tax dollar and you giving to charity is that the person receiving my money does not need to meet my (or your) standards of worthiness.


Laurie said...

As I have mentioned several times previously I think we have an imperfect economic system in which some people acquire millions and billions of dollars and others cannot meet their basic needs with the money they earn. It just make sense to take some $ from the obscenely rich and use it to help meet the basic needs of the poor. I think of it as a wise and moral correction to the system. Collectively we decide how much the rich and non-rich should be taxed.

Also, I agree with Moose's comment. Let's say I pay $2,000 in taxes each year which are used to help fund the safety net. I would rather help in this way than keep the $ and have to figure out which charities to give to myself. Govt programs seem much more efficient and effective to me.

The reason that the safety net programs haven't ended poverty is we are stuck with that imperfect economy which doesn't provide sufficient living wage jobs.

I have also previously posted links that argue it is this same lack of living wage jobs that contributes most to the breakdown of the family. The family is still doing quite well with college educated parents who are for the most part still firmly in the middle class.

Seems to me there is room for private charities to supplement the govt safety net.

John said...

By "standards of worthiness" do you mean...

There are expectations of personal changes, effort and improvement that most capable recipients will be expected to meet. The goal of said standards being to help the person to become truly independent so they no longer need to be helpless at the mercy of others.

Is it somehow kinder to continue to give people money with no expectations of them?

A total lack of faith in their ability to change, improve and escape dependency?

You seemingly see mercy as keeping people dependent and trapped within their own limiting beliefs and bad habits.

Whereas I see that as very cruel. They are definitely different perceptions of morality and how to help others.

John said...

I personally think you have your causality backwards. I have many family members and friends who have low incomes, however they do okay because they have stayed married and worked together to pay the bills and raise great children.

Emotional and fiscal poverty occurs when Parents do not stay and work together for the good of the family and the child(ren). And unfortunately the war on poverty made it easier for people to walk away from Parental /Spousal bonds and support systems.

As Moose indicates above, Liberals often believe that people should be given money and services no matter the choices they make, the actions they take, the people they hurt, etc. The concept of being a good student, good Mother, good Father, good Spouse, good employee, etc is apparently immaterial in Moose's dream society.

Apparently the taxes should continue to be raised and the standards of our society continue to be lowered. Now that may kind of work if we were the only people on the globe. However it is a certain path to our long term failure since we live in a very globally completive world where the USA needs every capable citizen knowledgeable and pulling their weight if we all want to maintain our excellent quality of life.

John said...

As I often ask, if society takes money from the wealthy who are using it to invest in our society. And we give it to the unsuccessful folks of the country...

What improvements are we going to demand from the recipients?

Will we demand that they get their GED or High School Diploma?

Will we demand that they only have as many children as they can personally afford?

Will we demand that they get jobs and work full time to help support our society?

Will we demand that they overcome their addiction, mental illness (ie stay on meds), etc?

That they clean up their neighborhoods and work to end crime in them?

Or is your vision to take from some citizens to enable others to stay dependent?

John said...

"we have an imperfect economic system"

I think that is called freedom...

- consumers are free to buy their cars overseas and take jobs from American Union workers and development personnel

- citizens are free to fail in school and make poor choices

- citizens are free to have more children than they can afford

- citizens are free to eat excessively and not exercise

- citizens are free to spend and get into debt

- illegal workers are free to come here, take jobs from American workers and depress the wages

- citizens are free to spend large sums of money on tobacco, gambling, and many other hobbies

Now if you want to control the distribution of wealth, then what other freedoms do you want to control?

Anonymous said...

I mean the Liberal Progressive philosophy sounds so simple and perfect.

I have to ask, in what way does a philosophy or ideology in which relativism plays a huge role sound perfect.

An absolutist I know loves to ask me "How can a relativist be sure of relativism?" That's question always stumps me. I am nowhere near coming up with an answer for that. Given that to be the case, how can I sound either simple or perfect?


John said...

Moose, Thoughts?

Anonymous said...

My thoughts have been clearly stated.

Do you have a specific question?


John said...

More on this later. Paul at MP made some comments that triggered an idea for a new related post.