Just a quick link to document the amount of taxes companies actually pay. The corporate tax rate in the US is pretty high. 35%. Conservatives point to this like it explains our economic problems, and if only we'd reduce it we'd be in better shape. But this is a nominal rate, not an actual rate. You may have heard recently about how Apple, one of the most profitable companies in the world, manages to pay such a low amount in taxes. Jon Stewart skewers them here, making a pretty good point as they complain about our complicated and difficult tax code. It's not poor people that have created this complexity. This is the result of corporate lobbying efforts.
Anyway, it looks like the total tax rate for companies in the Fortune 500 is 29.1% over the last 6 years. This is all taxes, including state, local, and everything spent to governments in other countries. So the federal US rate of 35% is very misleading.
29 comments:
I ran across the graphic in the NYT as well and found it interesting. What's your thought on a flat tax or a use tax?
Our federal tax system is slightly progressive and our state and local tax system is regressive, with the net effect being the overall tax code is just slightly progressive. A flat federal tax would probably mean you take the progressive part of our tax system and make it more regressive, so on net maybe our overall tax code is regressive? Definitely not what we need. We have slowly made our tax code less progressive, particularly for the ultra rich, over the last few decades. Meanwhile the ultra rich continually grab ever larger shares of the total revenue. This in my view has led directly to the economic downturn and explosion in poverty that we've seen.
So I think any tax scheme that makes our overall tax code more regressive is a bad idea. We should do the reverse. Do what worked, which was what we had in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. What we're doing instead is the reverse. As corporate profits set record upon record we similarly reduce the tax burden for corporations. Basically they are getting more wealthy and more powerful, and so they demand even more. It's a vicious circle.
I guess I was thinking more in terms of simplicty rather than the level of tax across income levels. Do you have any thoughts on eliminating loopholes while maintaining a progressive tax?
On a side note, one recent drawback on progressive taxes which I hadn't thought of was regarding national policies which require "skin in the game". On principal, the more apt people are to feel the opportunity cost for a specific policy, the more likely they are to weigh the relative merit of it. If you are paying little / no tax, or will not "feel" the impact of an initiative financially, then whatever the policy being discussed is in essence a freebie to you, and there is no financial downside for you to be against it.
Now before Examinator or you (Jon) pounce on me for whatever implication you might or might not think this question implies about the merit of your favorite tax system, or the fallacies of "mine", entitlements, the poor, etc. etc. all I'm saying is that was an interesting wrinkle I hadn't thought of before, not that it proves one system is better than another...
I guess I generally think the loopholes exist for the reason Jon Stewart explains. These are the result of corporate lobbying, burying provisions deep within the law so that they and their well paid accountants can go dig them out when nobody else is the wiser. So probably more simplicity is good, but the corporations aren't generally going to allow it.
The skin in the game comment I understand, but I look at it more as a theoretical thing. Yeah, that makes some sense theoretically, but if we emphasize what works first rather than plausible sounding right wing rationalizations, which is what this is whether you know it or not, then we don't worry about that sort of thing so much.
It kind of assumes that poor people run the show. As if these people with no skin in the game, the poorest in the nation, are the ones driving policy, and they'll take advantage of us vulnerable rich people. It's plausible in a democratic world, but we don't really live in anything like a democratic world. The rich have all the influence. The skin they put in the game they use to figure out ways to beat the poor back even more. Busting unions, negotiating sweet deals for unneeded security equipment. The poor are already getting robbed blind whether they pay taxes or not. This is like the next step in robbing them. First they do all the work and have to give the money to the non-working owner. Now the little bit of money they have we take more of that, because they need to have skin in the game. Like I said it's kind of a plausible sounding concept, but in the real world it's not important to make sure everyone has a tax bill.
Jon,
I hear your point about being pragmatic and all and doing what works, but regarding the skin in the game idea, I think you might be a bit short sighted in ignoring it. I figured you'd talk about how the rich actually are the ones who need more skin in the game, but we didn't go down that road.
Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that poor people should have to pay *more* than they are right now, heck - you could give people an across the board tax credit (or even make it progressive) and then remove portions of it with the adoption of various policies. Say you think we need to be involved in less wars. What if there was a war tax? We're gonna help the rebels in Libya, but the average American worker will end up paying $53.22 in extra taxes each month. Think you might get more protests and pressure to stay out of foreign countries then?
Say you're poor and you wouldn't pay this extra tax regardless because you know, they already have the smallest slice of the pie and the short end of the stick on so many ways. Poor people would still be against it because war will affect their families disproportionally anyway, but if that $1,000 bipartisian skin in the game tax credit was going to drop to $400, well I think you'd find a lot more patriotic Americans outraged when they see the actual opportunity cost. And I don't think this would be a bad thing.
BTW - not that it matters (at least to me anyway) because I like to evaluate ideas on their merits, not on where I think the idea came from, but this notion was floated out by a liberal talk show host, not by a Fox News pundit ( I don't even get cable). :-)
That's a great idea, but I guess I was thinking more pragmatically, like if we were to have everyone with skin in the game what would that policy actually look like? It would probably be a flat tax, reductions in the progressivity of the tax structure, possibly things like a VAT. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I think a war tax would be almost impossible to achieve, whereas changes in the rate like what I'm thinking of happen all the time. It's something that the most powerful corporations will resist. They don't want people to consider the cost at the time they choose war because it makes it less likely they will choose war, and the corporations are profiting from these wars, not just in terms of selling weaponry, but controlling people in other nations helps with labor rates and resource control for wholly different industries.
It would be tough to single out war also. Then the rich will say "I don't want to pay for Social Security, Medicare, if you want that here's a fee associated with it." I was reading how in Denmark they are taxed very highly, and one of the things they do with the money is create electricity in renewable but expensive ways. Some will say "You want renewable energy, you pay for it." Then they free ride on others that sacrifice so the environment is sustainable. I just think it would be a hard sell. Getting skin in the game in reality probably means just taxing the poor moor, and probably the rich would be taxed less.
Jon,
Yeah, I guess that's the difference in our mindsets. I figure if there's a better way to do things, go out and push to make it happen, and then settle for less if you absolutely have to. You look at what we've done in the past, and if it's worked, let's shoot for that. If we were stock traders, you'd be investing in IBM and Ford, and I'd be going with more of the startups claiming that there's so much more potential upside that it would almost be well... irresponsible to not shoot for something bigger.
I like this excerpt from 4 Hour Workweek:
It's lonely at the top. Ninety-nine percent of people in the world are convinced they are incapable of achieving great things, so they aim for mediocre. The level of competition is thus fiercest for "realistic" goals, paradoxically making them the most time and energy consuming...
Having an unusually large goal is an adrenaline infusion that provides the endurance to overcome the inevitable trials and tribulations that go along with any goal. Realistic goals, goals restricted to the average ambition level, are uninspiring and will only fuel you through the first or second problem, at which point you throw in the towel. If the potential payoff is mediocre or average, so is your effort.
I'll run through walls to get a catamaran trip through the Greek islands, but i might not change my grand of cereal for a weekend trip through Columbus, Ohio. If I choose the latter because it is "realistic," I won't have the enthusiasm to jump even the smallest hurdle to accomplish it. With beautiful, crystal-clear Greek waters and delicious wine on the brain, I"m prepared to do battle for a dream that is worth dreaming. Even though their difficulty of achievement appears to be a 10 and a 2 respectively, Columbus is more likely to fall through.
The fishing is best where the fewest go, and the collective insecurity of the world makes it easy for people to hit home runs while everyone else is aiming for base hits. There is just less competition for bigger goals.
It's simply amazing that new normals become standards. 30 percent which is 1 dollar for every 3 made essentially is taken - way way way too high period.
I applaud any company who figures out how to reduce their tax rate to the absolute smallest amount possible.
Employees are taxed - businesses taxed - we are taxed for nearly everything after that as well. Gas, purchases, phone bill, hair cuts, Internet.
Earners are taxed nearly at 50 percent plus now - house of cards that will fall and fall hard.
Chad and Jon
I found the recent news in Sweden, a seemingly successful society with progressive tax recently descending into riots and chaos rather interesting.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-26/sweden-riots-put-faces-to-statistics-as-stockholm-burns.html
Feel free to form your own opinion of what the root cause of this is and any takeaways, but I find it an interesting (and ever developing) case study...
Jonathan, maybe when I heard you talk about skin in the game I kind of filled in some gaps, made some assumptions. I just assumed you meant it in the sense that conservatives often do, that is make the tax code more regressive. I do like the idea of making us all pay some sort of war fee if we decide on war.
Jonathan,
Pounce on you? never ;-)
The point that arm chair reasoning tends to miss is that it's not that simple.
1. Who do you think benefits from wars? the BIG WINNERS are the MMC but stopping paying for wars and half a million plus low paid workers would be unemployed they clearly have skin in the game.
Keep in mind that 25+% of the budget goes to pay for supplying military machine.
Ask your self what would happen if the US public was able to force a massive downsizing etc.
Those capitalists would seek other lucrative alternatives. In essence it would be Financial industry's games ... this sector is big on money low on providing low skilled jobs at HOME ergo the money would go to develop OS production (jobs). No jobs no consumerist sales .... connect the dots.
2.Now flat tax, it would release more money to the capitalists/ rich who would seek lucrative opportunities see No 1
3 many US companies pay little or no tax anyway see Google and their fight with the British Govt.
Apple is THE new-ish vampire gorilla and is getting into trouble in Australia by trying to enforce US practices over Aust consumer law and tax issues.
In essence many corporations are now maximising profit by playing games with laws especially Tax.
As such it is not credible (naive) to suggest that making tax lower would encourage corporations or the rich to effectively pay more than they are now.
Ex - that is where your naive severly. The rich awful business capitalist pigs ALWAYS find holes in laws made to confiscate their money. Anotherwords you can change the rules of the game as many times as you want, but they will always win.
It's not enough that they employ people, provide opportunities to earn, but they are also scrutinized when they attempt to keep every penny earned.
How to combat that - it's your belief is to close every tax loop hole and hit them big - 30%, 40% - hell maybe you think 50% is not enough which will result in lower wages and higher unemployment.
What I believe and people who actually run businesses believe is that competition is the key. Ease up the millions of regulations, lower tax burden, eliminate any Cap gains taxes and allow Troggle to be born to compete with Google.
Your missing the boat yet again - you can't hurt Google, Wal-Mart, the Koch Brothers by taxes/regulations - they have smarter people working for them then gov't/colleges do. When you do those things (they laugh about this too) all your doing is to make it more difficult for their competition to come into the market and compete and therefore your hurting the very people you think your trying to help. It's totally backwards.
Examinator,
The point that arm chair reasoning tends to miss is that it's not that simple.
1. Who do you think benefits from wars? the BIG WINNERS are the MMC but stopping paying for wars and half a million plus low paid workers would be unemployed they clearly have skin in the game.
Keep in mind that 25+% of the budget goes to pay for supplying military machine.
Ask your self what would happen if the US public was able to force a massive downsizing etc.
Those capitalists would seek other lucrative alternatives. In essence it would be Financial industry's games ... this sector is big on money low on providing low skilled jobs at HOME ergo the money would go to develop OS production (jobs). No jobs no consumerist sales .... connect the dots.
I see - so if one were to advocate increased US involvement in foreign affairs, this would be seen as American hegemony, but if one were to advocate less US involvement, this would be armchair reasoning that would hurt the poor? Did I just get you to point out the benefit of war time capitalism as a way to help the poor? I think Chad owes me a lunch. :-)
If you were in power, which would you advocate, more wars or less? What would the ramifications be on the poor?
I have a feeling you might not respond directly to one or both parts of these, so my follow up will pose this question again in slightly different wording if skipped over. :-)
In essence many corporations are now maximizing profit by playing games with laws especially Tax.
As such it is not credible (naive) to suggest that making tax lower would encourage corporations or the rich to effectively pay more than they are now.
If you read my initial comment regarding flat tax, use tax etc, I was never advocating less tax vs more tax, I was referring to a simplified tax system.
So I'll pose the same question to you - do you think a less complex tax system would be beneficial? If so, what type would you pick? If not, what would you change in the current US tax system?
Jonathan,
First your response to my point about the flat tax/ simplification.
What ever level it is pitched at some corporation are currently paying effectively less... it's because some countries NEED the jobs i.e. they're better than no jobs *in a capitalist world* see the two companies I mention ...add FORD in Australia .... the federal/state governments were paying Ford $billions in cash, to keep manufacturing vehicles in Australia that doesn't include free land, no real bureaucratic costs to build etc. tax breaks etc.
General motors were are paid even more.
Both corporations have used the profit to build up their manufacturing mega factories in "more profitable markets" .
So as not to compete with the bigger market they made and sold 'sunset' vehicles for the Aussie market v8s and big V6 'utes' while importing the major sellers from the mega factories. Now they find that they no longer need the Aussie wind fall and are pulling out of local manufacturing etc.
Australia can't compete if it uses
internal restrictions the one time beneficiary of this (the USA ford/ GM ), it's an odds on bet they'd get the US Government to drag Aust to the WTO and squeeze their imports.
There are other Corporations that through transfer pricing etc, tax havens etc pay no tax at all.
flat tax or tax simplification in the US would change nothing... that would advantage a medium sized market like the USA (350 million) Europe is twice that, India 3-4 as is China more.
Legally, the harder you try to plug a tax loop hole the more it opens another elsewhere
In Hard core reality is that simplifying the tax code in one country alone although a noble venture would achieve very little. If the Corporations like FORD ,GM, #$*&^%#@ Monsanto, they'd simply move off shore see Haliburton . It might reduce the compliance costs for the corporations and might that might generate a Xmas card thankx but little else.
As for the less or more US involvement O/S that is a very interesting argument but then again you are looking at the issue far too simplistically.
It has been pointed out by people more competent than I that The US's real problem is that it over estimates the power of their military to *resolve * issues. i.e. Korea, Israel,/Palestine,Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Rwanda and Cuba, the war against Drugs, terrorism et al. In reality the US can do a lot better if it backed away from “enforcing corporate interests by BFI
This topic is fascination but it could get lengthy and involved so I'll wait for a more appropriate topic.
Chad,
Please stop with the combative approach it makes you miss what I'm saying and the context. If you read what I said in context we are agreeing that Big business/ extreme rich tax is optional .....
Again I'm not advocating anything merely stating the facts.
It is you who is editorialising by your comment about 'confiscating their money'(sic).
Your focus never seems to go beyond your immediate circumstances.
Assuming that you are clearly younger than me it is sad that I might never see your views once circumstances change. i.e. Grand Children are factored into your concerns.
Do you really believe that the US goes to war with the actual intention of winning said war? C'mon the US tries to play nice at the expense of winning - if they wanted to win - let me say this - if they took the same approach as our enemy we would not lose a single war. I hate war, but when the US gets involved in a conflict they play by rules and standards above and beyond any other nation. They could wipe Syria off the map in days - problem being there would be collateral damage and when CNN shows photos of dead women and children the backlash would be too great.
Besides the military machine does make / exchange a lot of money - its a pretty big part of the economy especially when you factor in all the personnel.
I am all for staying out of all conflicts - until someone invades Mississippi then I wouldn't authorize anything. When and if it was time to go to war then go to win - not this politically correct version the US has to play. Remember the results or should I say how quickly a conflict ended after the dropping of just 2 bombs?
In regards to taxes - I know it's a super crazy idea, but why should there be any National Income Taxes on businesses? The employees incomes are taxed so how and why can the gov't tax money twice, three and then four times makes no sense to me. Employers shockingly employ people who then are taxed (up their asses) from then on so just get out of the way. If the State or City imposes a tax on businesses then fine, but no business should have to write a check to gov't since employees are taxed.
BTW - a bit off topic, but how amazing is it that Democrats/Progressives have - in just 5 years with Barrack Hussein in the chair - have normalized what used to be disaterious numbers?
I haven't heard this admin and especially that waste of space say the word JOBS in months.
$3.85 gas is now the norm.
When unemployment goes under 8% - only because of the number of PT workers and the fact that they don't care about the real unemployment - people on the Left say see it's good.
There are far fewer small banks and the big banks got bigger.
Obama Care is a disaster in any language - nearly double the cost and rising initially thought.
More people on gov't assistance 1 in 3 than ever before.
3 scandals with a 4th on the way yet there is not a single person on the Left is concerned.
17 Trillion in debt and rising.
The rich own more of the money than ever.
The Fed is printing money at a record pace.
Record number of regulations
The largest fleet of IRS agents ever
And we can go on for a while with bullets
Minus him having one moment when he acted like a President and ordered ST6 to put a bullet in OBL's head - there is not a damn thing this guy has done right to date.
Guys,
Here's one for you.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/18425.html
well worth some consideration raises some questions as to the notion that private enterprise is the most efficient cheapest way to do everything.
Consider the flow on effects i.e. more money to buy other things.
I guess the attraction for me is that it puts more money in more hands (it is more cognisant of the purpose of societies).
It also adds fuel to my argument to the Conservative set that more of the same isn't always the best solution.
NB I AM NOT ADVOCATING THIS merely pointing out that there are many solutions if one is prepared to think 'out of the constraints of status quo'.
FYI I have always banked with Credit Unions but not always exclusively.
Chad,
again you leap to the dogmatic argumentative extremes.
Please try and understand I'm not advocating any thing merely adding information.
Your defensiveness the need to defend your views simply means you have a closed mind and are not really interested in looking any further.
I NOTE THAT BOTH YOU AND HP HAVE A SIMILAR ATTITUDE... you are the only two who state categorically that you don't read other people's posts. Why? it seems as though you have formed opinions and are unwilling to challenge your selves.... Socrates once said something to the effect " a man who who is sure he knows everything(has the answers) really only knows one thing ...he's too frightened to examine his views to listen to others'....a wise man constantly challenges his own views . the more treasured those views are the greater he should challenge them" .
As stated I have never doubted your IQ just the level of your knowledge... you may remember that very early in my joining this group I said exactly that.
I may not agree with you or anybody else on specific issues but I always pay them the respect of reading what they say and think about it.
Ex,
I can't speak for HP, but I think your lying to yourself if you believe that your challenging your own views and that you have a far more open mind then anyone else.
I have never claimed to have all the answers or any of them for that matter, but I do have a core belief system that will not compromise on simply because someone thinks I am closed minded - that only solidifies my beliefs that much more actually. I think that compromising on what is right has gotten us right where we are today in so many ways. Exactly what I said earlier - new normals - Progressives attack everything sacred to move the needle from taboo to acceptable meanwhile creating a new army of takers.
Individual responsibility, freedom, faith and very limited gov't is my personal foundation - if any topic infringes on those core values and beliefs then I will argue. It has zero to do with knowledge, open mindeness, understanding zen or any other damn thing - at that point it has everything to do with being okay with my core beliefs. You may be fine with being wishy washy on what you believe, but that's not me.
There are many possible solutions to each and every situation - there is I agree - for me it should never involve a centralized, over regulated approach that uses gov't as the tool while eliminating personal responsibility as the answer. Does gov't need to exist - sure it does, should there be some regulations absolutely, but gov't should have the smallest foot print possible in my opinion.
You may pay people the respect of reading their posts, but there will not be a single person who will say that they believe that you drink in what was said looking for positives to take from the thoughts - no sir. Your only focus in nearly all cases is to try your very best to crush, break apart, twist and bend the ideas in such a way that more than half the time I have no idea what the hell your talking about. When we talk personal experiences we are naive and in a bubble - when you talk about yoir personal experiences they should be taken as truth and they are relevant. If we stray off topic - we are avoiding it, but when you go for a walk it is very relevant.
I think I speak for most in saying it would be nice if you did in fact challenge yourself and the way that you respond - that would be great.
Chad,
Thank you for the feed back.
Sadly my limited skills of expression appear to have failed me!
I didn't say what you seem to have interpreted.
Chad if you read back over the many posts I keep telling you that I am not a "liberal/progressive" (sic) neither am I a devotee of any other ideology yet you always attack me as if I were and argue in and by extreme(s).
e.g. you said [.. it should never involve a centralized, OVER regulated approach **that uses gov't as the tool while eliminating personal responsibility as the answer.**] That isn't an argument it is a motherhood statement (slogan).
A bit like saying "I like mothers and apple pie". What it doesn't convey is which mothers and as a counsellor I've met a few that are a disgrace to the term.
Then again I've met some teen age single mums who are terrific. Likewise I've met affluent parents who are also a disgrace . Now you on the other hand claim no one should have children unless they can afford them and single mums are ALL social welfare sponges ( your words in context) .
All I'm saying there is that I accept that it isn't a matter of black or white . The only interpretation of your words is the extreme NO EXCEPTIONS.
I'm NOT saying or advocating ALL OR MOST teen age girls SHOULD be social service sponges.
I would suggest in general all things being equal , for their benefit and that of society they shouldn't get pregnant especially when it's motivated by hormonal wars. In that instance I'm simply saying the problem exists and always has that leads us to two options make their lives miserable and store up a problem for later on. Or deal with it equitably ( note The word I mean it in the sense of fairness human rights). Mindful that harsh penalties and condemnation never works..
Clearly by the fact that I've stated it would be better if they didn't it indicates that I don't have a totally open mind it simply means I have seen what happens if we ignore or condemn and no one really wins …. I'm pragmatic. Pragmatism in this context isn't 'liberalism or progressivism' (sic) . It might even squeeze into the true Conservatism but that wouldn't sit well with the GOP market differentiation as a means to gain power.
And while my conclusions and my compromise actions have little to do with Zen ( another extreme reference
by you) it does have a LOT to do with experience and what the Government can and can't do. It is has been imperative for me to have acquired an eclectic ( bits of every thing) to do more than I otherwise could have.
In short Chad Broad sweeping rigid core values are fine for you but when dealing with others one must be understanding of their nuanced circumstances and be pragmatic enough to deal with it. We as individuals aren't solely the masters of our fate others' actions have a habit of screwing up our ambitions and we can't control them.
Beyond that I am unable to explain further.
I understand that you claim not to have a side of the fence that you reside (liberal/conservative) but I do read your posts and they definitely lean heavily in the direction of progressives and even lean toward socialism when you break things down. In fact I can't think of many topics / responses where your view leaned to the right.
I like to deal with certain topics in a specific way which is more black and white then grey - absolutely. To say that any conversation topic has a million different outcomes is of course true - any scenario we can find an individual situation that would test the foundational boundaries of a topic. I am fully aware of that, but you tend to get far too deep in the mud puddle - your examples in many cases are obtuse at best - a one in 100 or worse scenario in many cases. That tends to be the strategy of people who have more progressive views - find the worst cast scenario (again the new normal) and play it up as if it is the common situation when it is not.
Thankfully not one of us will ever (most likely) be in a position to affect real political change and so when I have a few minutes to come out and throw my opinion around for laughs - I am going to deal in more absolutes versus the minutia you tend to mire yourself in trying to destroy a foundational argument based on the few instead of the many. Or - now here is the slippery slope I realize - or when the 'majority' voting or polling are part of the recipient class. Another words - how valid is an argument or poll when half or more of the votes come from someone where the only affect for them is positive?
Chad,
What can I say? you are a bit like the man who tells a farm worker to get a shovel because you want him to dig a few holes. While in simplistic terms this is true but if you digging post holes the average shovel would be little better than useless. They are specific holes and they need a specific shovel. Words are like that.
As I explained in the "Milton Friedman's Awesome Idea" topic.
The "right" generally move redefine the meaning of words.
i.e. A "Liberal" As a noun, a follow Liberalism's ideology.
It's general usage is as an adjective or an adverb it need a noun i.e. a liberal republican meaning a non rigid/doctrinal one who follows the principles of republicanism.
NB Rome was a republic (arguably its peak) yet any similarity to the Republican party of today is very thin indeed.
Likewise the "Tea Party" Both are Marketing vague terms... a grab for emotional association. Likewise "True Patriots" or "whiter than white" they are all associative marketing terms (hyperbole.. slogans) in and of themselves they convey nothing. Words Like Liberal, Conservative etc are terms with specific definitions and specific criteria.
You should note that those criteria rarely exclude other terms.
As I indicated in my last post, according to the "REAL" definitions My core values are NOT necessarily conflicting to yours where they differ is the degree to which we apply them. as I indicated about teen moms I don't believe I castigating or disadvantaging them further because it has been shown that by doing so society pays a bigger price later on (simple cost benefit analysis[not a soppy emotional justification]. it's not an opinion but proven in several research papers).
Then there are their right to do what they see fit. In one way that is liberal(adjective) or pragmatic Conservatism. I definitely don't advocate therefore condone it.
What it ISN'T is Socialism. Socialism is a totally different political ideology read a proper source on that one (NOT Wiki).
Sorry pal but there are no short cuts to understanding he terms.
As I've said on innumerable times Social welfare was an Enlightened (another ideology)Conservative concept Before COMMUNISM.
In truth the USA and to lessor sense the western world has artificially (dis)colored the the terms for their own (selfish capitalistic?) purposes.
Conclusion: You can use all the over simplistic language (yell marketing brand names/slogans at me all you want but until you are specific and use the correct functional terms I still won't know which "shovel" to bring.
My wife has a habit of saying 'you'll need to get a screw driver to fix the thingy before it becomes a disaster' ...
"really dear which screw driver and which thingy ... I don't know what its called isn't helpful"
I use a post hole digger to dig post holes or most likely will rent a back hoe with an auger or hire general labor to dig the ones for me. I bring my entire toolbox when told to fix a thingy and deduct for myself what tool needs to be used rather than relying on someone else to tell me in exact detail what tool to bring.
Society pays that price because of a lack of discipline on the front end, upholding famly values and holding individuals responsible for their actions.
Chad
of course I know about Augers manual and mechanical and hole digging shovels, Like I know issues access, ground types etc all of which determine the type of post hole equipment. Heysus on a pogo stick mate. I've already told you I've done years as a revegetation volunteer on two continents. It was an analogy to illustrate that precision in information is essential in any endeavour. ( hence the mnemonic the 5'P's Piss Poor Planning gives Pitiful Production).
Had you read what I said carefully you may have noticed the theoretical you DIDN'T mention the holes were post holes which was the key factor in the analogy.
However your response proves my point that your combativeness and tendency to towards over simplification causes you to deliver skewed reasoning.
It is also evidence of your tactic of distracting from the point under discussion with both a seeming smart ass answer and close the topic with dogma.
Yes there are some who need self discipline But as I said sweeping generalisations are indeed "ONE size fits NO one"
In reality you are passing judgement on people whose circumstances you have no idea about.Because you have succeeded that doesn't mean that all those out there had the same advantages or competences as you .
Acknowledging this as reality isn't compromising my/you values for your family . It is merely being consistent with most religious and political ideologies.
i.e. " Judge not (harshly) lest Ye be Judged (harshly)", "Before you complain about the spinter in your neighbor's eye remove the mote(log) in your own".
Your love of "money" (property...consumer adult toys) tend to overshadow the US conservative(sic) mind.
NB I'm NOT advocating some form of ASCETICISM rather MODERATION and not letting the drive for more toys to skew our thinking. To where the acquisition of and defence of 'stuff' become all encompassing to be our Achilles heel which it is.'
That isn't Liberalism/progressive or Socialism ad nausem .
What is dogma?
Not a whole lot I can extract from that exchange - a head scratcher, but what's new.
Personal responsibility IS the answer and solves most if not all problems actually.
You've once again done a fantastic job at proving many of my points - you don't have the guts to admit it - but I am big enough to say thanks.
I chose (personal responsibility) not to have children until I was capable of paying for them, didn't buy my toys until I was capable of paying for them. I ask nothing from no one, but give when the cause is just.
Suddenly I owe those who don't have discipline, for those who make poor decisions I am tied to them financially with no ability to curb their bad choices. When I speak up and say hey that ain't right (paying taxes at a high rate to pay for others bad decisions) then I am a Godless money worshiping ghoul (which I wear as a badge of honor FYI).
The splinter in my leg has been put there by my so called neighbor - not my real neighbor since he is a successful business man, but my lazy American counterpart that makes consistent bad choices then turns to me and says give me cash bud. Problem being I don't know that person, can't punish them or teach them - but magically I am bound to them - in your eyes.
I like the religous fall back arguement you run too - its my soft under belly to be sure. My response to that is simple - I will continue to help those who are willing to help themselves and or will help those who can not help themselves. I start with my family then friends then immediate community and will do what I can then will let God decide if that is enough definitely not you or anyone else.
Good talk - I think.
BTW you said post holes and I played off that - may want to re-read your post my friend.
Chad
I actually said["you are a bit like the man who tells a farm worker to get a shovel because you want him to dig a few holes....."]Context Chad Context. It was clearly an analogy .
The point was you aren't precise enough with your definitions particularly when it comes to political ones.
You use imprecise definition i.e. you lump Aspects together that aren't mutually exclusive.
For example your selectivity in WHO you help isn't true conservatism* it's simply selective ...The American righties have deliberately blurred the lines to justify their unique (self centered ) view of the world as in Capitalism**. This deliberate blurring of the lines is also so alternative opinions can be dismissed prematurely. This type of verbal reasoning has become both of stock and trade of rightie conversations and standard rote learning of the neo Conservative (sic) predetermined rules of thinking/conversation... talking points (dogma).
While I may personally disagree with teen mums I am not as discriminatory as you i.e. I don't fight social welfare and I will help hem to survive. One reason is that I know if I do nothing or try and reduce Social Security I am condemning society to continuing problems by propagating new breeding grounds for problem people. What that isn't is Liberalism. It's pragmatism and that can be in any political form from fascism to communism.
Neither is it exclusively Christian# .
Simply put Chad often plain talk/ thinking and certainly sticking to dogma has led many people to confuse thinking with simply rearranging prejudices. .
*Fact : No where in real Conservatism or even (new testament) Christianity does it say limit your charity by the criteria you do. Charity may BEGIN at home but certainly doesn't end there .( see the good Samaritan PARABLE... he saw need and attended to it also note Samaritans were enemies of the Jews at the time. As such it is clear that Jesus meant help people beyond your own value system also).
To do so you are making a judgement and he makes it clear NOT to judge others that is his job. There are good reasons why neither do. Largely because you can't know all circumstances and things may not be clear cut or as they may first seem. Certainly my experience convinces me of that.
#BTW this same principal runs through other religions in various forms to Atheism .
** Fact : Capitalism has NO morality . i.e. it is perfectly acceptable to sell a product that is harmful read (toxic) if it isn't SPECIFICALLY banned. Say DDT or “the synthetic drug like products” are banned in the US because of their detrimental (antisocial ) effects but ok to sell it in Burkina Faso because they don't have the the technical/legal infrastructure to stop it.
Chad
No doubt you won't have seen this bu read it anyway.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/everything-is-rigged-vol-9-713-this-time-its-currencies-20130613
Jon
Hope you are feeling better.
Here are some real capitalists
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/fuck-for-forest-documentary-sees-failure-in-carnal-idealism-a-905486.html ;-) hehheh
Post a Comment