That is indeed a moral grey area. On the one hand, I would hate to punish a person for saving their money instead of consuming by reducing what they are entitled to compared to others with similar income. On the other hand, if I was making that money and living well, I would be hesitant to take food stamps or the like. I think one thing it comes down to is why you are in the situation you are in. If you are raising a family and make that money simply because you can't get a better job (due to the economic situation, lack of education, whatever) then definitely take anything you can get. If you are purposely keeping your income low to qualify for these benefits, then I'm not so sure...
Family of 3 Lives on $20,000 per year
-
aussierogue
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm
Gandk
i think you misunderstood me by bringing a prejudice to the word "exploit". Technically exploitation is not a bad thing. Australia is exploiting it mineral reserves for example. Exploit, the way i mean it merey means "Make USE off"..
check dictionary for meaning and if you read my post again using this meaning i think it is less radical
As a side note
I was happy paying over 100k in taxes when i was earning over 25ok per year. Now i am happy taking some back while i earn 1/5 th of that. Money comes and goes....and at time we give and at other times we take....seslavis
i think you misunderstood me by bringing a prejudice to the word "exploit". Technically exploitation is not a bad thing. Australia is exploiting it mineral reserves for example. Exploit, the way i mean it merey means "Make USE off"..
check dictionary for meaning and if you read my post again using this meaning i think it is less radical
As a side note
I was happy paying over 100k in taxes when i was earning over 25ok per year. Now i am happy taking some back while i earn 1/5 th of that. Money comes and goes....and at time we give and at other times we take....seslavis
Basically, we seem to have two big sides for most of the people on here: "I don't like poor people getting free stuff" or "I don't like rich people getting free stuff." The "I don't like poor people getting free stuff" seems to be the favorite, which isn't surprising given that the majority of commenters are American and have been taught this from birth. Plus, it's much easier to relate to someone who makes $20k a year when you make $50-80k than it is to relate to someone who makes $500k or more, making it easier to resent the poor people.
I'm not suggesting that the people getting government handouts aren't "gaming" or "exploiting" the system, but so is everyone else. Rich, upper middle class, and poor all play a game with the system, it's just that they all play different games.
This $20k family plays the poor game that requires handouts. One of the top 10 or so evil words we are taugh as Americans, so it's not surprising this gets a big reaction.
The rich essentially get free transportation systems in harbors, airports, railways, and highways, as the vast majority of those are all funded by the government.
They also basically receive free handouts with government research. The vast majority of our tech is all derived from some government funded research on a base piece of science that no corporation would spend the money on, because the time scale is so long or there is no obvious benefit. The computer and internet are prime examples of research the government did and essentially gave away.
Yes, everyone else benefits from these too, but the two flights I take a year are not nearly the benefit that Mr. Jobs, Mr. Welch (overrated), or Mr. Buffett received from those same assets (and most of you probably paid a higher percent of your income in taxes than they did).
This all leads to what Aussierogue is labeling "false arguments." Whatever you call it, most of the people on here are only arguing one side, such as FFJeff and Zoombies.
However, all of that isn't the most interesting thing about this discussion. I hesitated to even put the above in, as it's almost irrelevant to a point MikeBos made earlier:
"I see this is an inevitable result of industrialization. Giant machinery has made individual workers so productive, we no longer need as many people to produce the stuff we need. The result: Some people will choose to just enjoy the abundant, cheap stuff and live simply; others, who either just love their jobs, or who we can lure into the trap of consumerism, will continue to man the machines.
Taxing the workers to provide for the freeloaders is really just a solution to a distribution problem (how to get all that cheap abundant stuff into people's hands)."
Not one person commented on this, and this is why this entire discussion exists.
No matter how much you think we should only reap what we earned, there isn't a person in this country or any first world country that only gets what they earned. Everyone gets more for a variety of reasons. (Don't get distracted by my use of "first world", as this is not meant to suggest all the wealth is off the backs of 3rd worlders. Just that a few 3rd worlders might actually be getting 100% of what they earned, while all 1st worlders are getting more than 100% of what they earned whether they are poor, middle class, or rich)
I'm not suggesting that the people getting government handouts aren't "gaming" or "exploiting" the system, but so is everyone else. Rich, upper middle class, and poor all play a game with the system, it's just that they all play different games.
This $20k family plays the poor game that requires handouts. One of the top 10 or so evil words we are taugh as Americans, so it's not surprising this gets a big reaction.
The rich essentially get free transportation systems in harbors, airports, railways, and highways, as the vast majority of those are all funded by the government.
They also basically receive free handouts with government research. The vast majority of our tech is all derived from some government funded research on a base piece of science that no corporation would spend the money on, because the time scale is so long or there is no obvious benefit. The computer and internet are prime examples of research the government did and essentially gave away.
Yes, everyone else benefits from these too, but the two flights I take a year are not nearly the benefit that Mr. Jobs, Mr. Welch (overrated), or Mr. Buffett received from those same assets (and most of you probably paid a higher percent of your income in taxes than they did).
This all leads to what Aussierogue is labeling "false arguments." Whatever you call it, most of the people on here are only arguing one side, such as FFJeff and Zoombies.
However, all of that isn't the most interesting thing about this discussion. I hesitated to even put the above in, as it's almost irrelevant to a point MikeBos made earlier:
"I see this is an inevitable result of industrialization. Giant machinery has made individual workers so productive, we no longer need as many people to produce the stuff we need. The result: Some people will choose to just enjoy the abundant, cheap stuff and live simply; others, who either just love their jobs, or who we can lure into the trap of consumerism, will continue to man the machines.
Taxing the workers to provide for the freeloaders is really just a solution to a distribution problem (how to get all that cheap abundant stuff into people's hands)."
Not one person commented on this, and this is why this entire discussion exists.
No matter how much you think we should only reap what we earned, there isn't a person in this country or any first world country that only gets what they earned. Everyone gets more for a variety of reasons. (Don't get distracted by my use of "first world", as this is not meant to suggest all the wealth is off the backs of 3rd worlders. Just that a few 3rd worlders might actually be getting 100% of what they earned, while all 1st worlders are getting more than 100% of what they earned whether they are poor, middle class, or rich)
everything they produce...is theirs. If you take what they make you have part ownership in their production. That makes you part slave owner and them part slave. Crack that whip. Why do you have a right to their production? Just because we live on the same pile of dirt and shoot fireworks off on the 4th we have to be brothers? Maybe...idk
Well I think you're right, that to support my idea I really ought to put forth an argument as to why one person is justified in taking another person's property/work.
But I think we can't take for granted that the other side has the burden of making an argument too. The idea that if you gather, acquire or improve something that you then have a "property interest" in that thing can't be taken for granted. Ownership of property is a societal construct. It turns out it's a rather helpful one since if no one had any right to things they gathered, acquired or improved then nobody would bother gathering, acquiring or improving anything and it would make working towards improving your security, comfort or technology pretty much impossible.
So it seems to me society invented property rights out of convenience so that we could all work towards improving our lives.
But if technology gets to the point where resources are so abundant that it takes minutes to acquire all the resources one person needs to be comfortable for a lifetime, maybe the need for property rights will have have run its course?
In fact, if someone could run those machines willingly, without coercion, even given the situation where they know they don't get to keep the fruits of their labor, then that's all the more reason why we no longer need property rights. This guy is producing stuff because he enjoys producing stuff, not because he wants to have a property interest in the fruits of his labor.
Well I think you're right, that to support my idea I really ought to put forth an argument as to why one person is justified in taking another person's property/work.
But I think we can't take for granted that the other side has the burden of making an argument too. The idea that if you gather, acquire or improve something that you then have a "property interest" in that thing can't be taken for granted. Ownership of property is a societal construct. It turns out it's a rather helpful one since if no one had any right to things they gathered, acquired or improved then nobody would bother gathering, acquiring or improving anything and it would make working towards improving your security, comfort or technology pretty much impossible.
So it seems to me society invented property rights out of convenience so that we could all work towards improving our lives.
But if technology gets to the point where resources are so abundant that it takes minutes to acquire all the resources one person needs to be comfortable for a lifetime, maybe the need for property rights will have have run its course?
In fact, if someone could run those machines willingly, without coercion, even given the situation where they know they don't get to keep the fruits of their labor, then that's all the more reason why we no longer need property rights. This guy is producing stuff because he enjoys producing stuff, not because he wants to have a property interest in the fruits of his labor.
-
aussierogue
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm
some great posts above. thanks chad for quite rightly pointing out mikes comments which fully agree...
I often think that society must be seen wholistically not just in terms of a linear onemans contribution (economically) vs anothers...
I am not advocating communism, im advocating reality. The point about indsutrialisation is also a good one and in my mind can be thrown into the melting pot of arguements for or against playing the system.
I guess my key point is that with all the possible scenarios, all the possibile factors at play how can we be DOGMATIC either way.
Yet for many they see the opportunity to be dogmatic and at the first smell of a welfare cheat, the chest comes out and they feel powerful in their indignation.
I am just calling for balance. Puff the chest out for sure but do it for everyone...or dont do it at all....
I often think that society must be seen wholistically not just in terms of a linear onemans contribution (economically) vs anothers...
I am not advocating communism, im advocating reality. The point about indsutrialisation is also a good one and in my mind can be thrown into the melting pot of arguements for or against playing the system.
I guess my key point is that with all the possible scenarios, all the possibile factors at play how can we be DOGMATIC either way.
Yet for many they see the opportunity to be dogmatic and at the first smell of a welfare cheat, the chest comes out and they feel powerful in their indignation.
I am just calling for balance. Puff the chest out for sure but do it for everyone...or dont do it at all....
It's interesting looking at it in that way. When it comes to an individuals production at extreme levels, it even get more so to me. As production from an individual goes towards infinity, the gains become questionable... I mean seriously, material gain only goes so far. If this person overproduces to such an extreme, what is the point of keeping it? Really the only reason left for this person to continue is for power over others. So in a case of extreme overproduction.... are these property rights really protecting the individual from future material hardship, etc , or are they really there to protect their influence over other people??
The idea that people only produce stuff for gain is pure fallacy. There are direct and indirect examples just on this forum of people who knowingly continue to work even when they know they won’t use the extra cash. So, it’s safe to assume these people aren’t going to work for money, as they never use it.
I personally know multiple people that would still go to a normal job even if they had enough to retire on, because they can’t entertain themselves.
We don’t always have to go to extremes. Just because the idea of changing property rights is brought up, it doesn’t mean anyone is talking about an all or nothing approach. But, we will need to change these rights in the near future because only a small number of people will be necessary to produce vast quantities of stuff.
This all ties into the “manufacturing jobs are being forced overseas” argument to a degree. Some of those jobs were sent overseas, but many of them were just replaced with robots and computers, and this is going to accelerate. Even jobs that everyone once thought were hard to automate (accounting, cleaning, etc.) will be automated. The U.S. government just set aside an area over the Pacific to test Boeing’s fully autonomous drone. How long before a coal truck can go from a West Virginia strip mine to the power plant and back without a driver? They could do it right now, but it would cost a little. We all know that cost won’t stay high for long. We already have fully autonomous combines to harvest grain. They usually have a human ride shotgun just to make sure nothing goes wrong, but how long will that last? Another 10 years? Probably not. How long before the AI is considered good enough to only need one human pilot on an airliner?
When you toss in 3D printing (just saw an article the other day talking about a printer that used titanium dust to create a metal piece of equipment) the number of people needed drops even further.
All I’m saying is that this is inevitable, as long as power and resource production is roughly the same as it is now (not a given). How do you distribute an almost infinite amount of goods when you only need 20-30% of the population to produce it? There won’t be anyone to buy it, as the majority of the population won’t be able to find a job.
@aussierogue
“Yet for many they see the opportunity to be dogmatic and at the first smell of a welfare cheat, the chest comes out and they feel powerful in their indignation. I am just calling for balance. Puff the chest out for sure but do it for everyone...or dont do it at all....”
I couldn’t agree more…balance. It’s what we don’t have right now, at least in the U.S.
For example, no one against a publicly funded healthcare system in the U.S. ever admits that we already have one. We have one because public hospitals can’t refuse patients, so we still pay for it…though less efficiently than Canada. The first argument you have to make as an opponent of public healthcare is that you are for turning anyone without insurance away from a public hospital. Until you do that any further argument is pointless. Of course, no one in this country has brought that up yet. Plus, good luck finding anyone to fill that post at a hospital. This is just an example of arguments not being balanced and not meant to open another can of worms (U.S. healthcare).
@JasonR
I simplified the argument by labeling it rich/poor. However, I still think it sums up the views of both camps even if it is lacking.
That link is fine, but to be honest pure philosophy arguments bore me as they are more concerned with the argument than a solution. They always stop short.
I personally know multiple people that would still go to a normal job even if they had enough to retire on, because they can’t entertain themselves.
We don’t always have to go to extremes. Just because the idea of changing property rights is brought up, it doesn’t mean anyone is talking about an all or nothing approach. But, we will need to change these rights in the near future because only a small number of people will be necessary to produce vast quantities of stuff.
This all ties into the “manufacturing jobs are being forced overseas” argument to a degree. Some of those jobs were sent overseas, but many of them were just replaced with robots and computers, and this is going to accelerate. Even jobs that everyone once thought were hard to automate (accounting, cleaning, etc.) will be automated. The U.S. government just set aside an area over the Pacific to test Boeing’s fully autonomous drone. How long before a coal truck can go from a West Virginia strip mine to the power plant and back without a driver? They could do it right now, but it would cost a little. We all know that cost won’t stay high for long. We already have fully autonomous combines to harvest grain. They usually have a human ride shotgun just to make sure nothing goes wrong, but how long will that last? Another 10 years? Probably not. How long before the AI is considered good enough to only need one human pilot on an airliner?
When you toss in 3D printing (just saw an article the other day talking about a printer that used titanium dust to create a metal piece of equipment) the number of people needed drops even further.
All I’m saying is that this is inevitable, as long as power and resource production is roughly the same as it is now (not a given). How do you distribute an almost infinite amount of goods when you only need 20-30% of the population to produce it? There won’t be anyone to buy it, as the majority of the population won’t be able to find a job.
@aussierogue
“Yet for many they see the opportunity to be dogmatic and at the first smell of a welfare cheat, the chest comes out and they feel powerful in their indignation. I am just calling for balance. Puff the chest out for sure but do it for everyone...or dont do it at all....”
I couldn’t agree more…balance. It’s what we don’t have right now, at least in the U.S.
For example, no one against a publicly funded healthcare system in the U.S. ever admits that we already have one. We have one because public hospitals can’t refuse patients, so we still pay for it…though less efficiently than Canada. The first argument you have to make as an opponent of public healthcare is that you are for turning anyone without insurance away from a public hospital. Until you do that any further argument is pointless. Of course, no one in this country has brought that up yet. Plus, good luck finding anyone to fill that post at a hospital. This is just an example of arguments not being balanced and not meant to open another can of worms (U.S. healthcare).
@JasonR
I simplified the argument by labeling it rich/poor. However, I still think it sums up the views of both camps even if it is lacking.
That link is fine, but to be honest pure philosophy arguments bore me as they are more concerned with the argument than a solution. They always stop short.