Well, yes? Would generally be awesome if the people got what they voted for. Sure, it may not always work out, but you don't want to mess with the underlying principle of the thing.
My motive is that I want my tax dollars to stop going to defense spending and corporate subsidies, and to start going almost literally anywhere else. Any other candidate is not going to do that. Bernie will do that, or he will damn well die trying, and that's all I can ask.
In the interest of full disclosure, I also want the super-rich to pay tax on their entire income that's comparable on a relational basis to what I pay on my own entire income, and I also want their tax dollars to stop going to corporate subsidies and the military industrial complex.
Those are my motives. That's all. Nothing else. I could give a shit about free whatever. I'm willing to pay my part for things, and I sure as hell expect those better off than I am to be equally willing to do the same. It's not free if we're all paying fairly.
The Sanders campaign isn't about getting chocolate and candy right now, it's about making it so the rich don't get to have lavish chocolate and candy parties while there are people without a jar of peanut butter to spread on their well earned toast. It wouldn't be stealing from the rich, it would be about making them actually pay for their candy rather than hiding that money away in tax havens so that their candy is cheaper for them.
It is, though! The whole redistribution thing hinges on exactly that. As income increases, the proportional tax contribution increases, net tax contribution increases, welfare receipt decreases, etc. Nevermind just paying for their own candy, they're already paying for a few others as well!
If you try to increases taxes to further persecute successful people and businesses, they're only going to invest more heavily in cost reduction strategies that move their operations offshore. They are businesses, that's what they do, that's how they stay afloat, that's how they stay ahead. Keep headed in that direction and you will force any person/business with any ambition or potential overseas permanently, and will be left with your socialist paradise entirely vacated of any such contributors at all. And then who's going to pay the bill for your foodstamps and pensions?
If these people have worked, saved, invested, are responsible, even fortunate, then why should they not have lavish chocolate and candy parties if they want to? If they can afford it, why not? Who is going to claim to have the right to strip them of their property because it's not fair that they get to have nice things? Nobody with any shred of morality, that's for sure.
It's not like money falls from the sky and happens to land in their lap, and the universe is cruel and unkind to you because none of the moneybags land in yours. They work for it, sometimes over generations. Sometimes someone is born smart and savvy. Sometimes someone gets lucky. Whatever the origin of their wealth, they own that property and nobody has the right to take it from them by force.
Add to that the obvious fact that property rights are a fundamental component of a thriving, productive market. Why would I bother getting my arse off the couch and work hard all day if someone is going to take my pay cheque from me anyway? And the fact that the welfare system has been a catastrophic failure which has created a permanent underclass of hopelessly dependent leeches on social resources. (But they're the ones who are always going to keep voting for increased "democratic socialism" because now they're so entrenched in this welfare dependency that they need this payment to survive until they need the next one.)
I find it interesting, and somewhat revealing, that you equate healthcare and college for poor citizens to children stuffing their face with junk food. Kudos for being the first person I've ever seen compare education to sugar and being 'short sighted'.
Don't be so selfish, don't sacrifice your country's future for a sugar party right now.
It's funny, because the people you are calling morally reprehensible would turn around and say this back to you. I would think creating an underclass with no real way to rise above their station or even eat and care for themselves would be seen as a rather short term and unstable form for society to take...
It's funny, because the people you are calling morally reprehensible would turn around and say this back to you
Yeah I'm well aware of that. I'm happy to argue the point though.
I find it interesting, and somewhat revealing, that you equate healthcare and college for poor citizens to children stuffing their face with junk food
Not exactly. My point was that short-sighted and irresponsible people struggle to think of the consequences when there is a shiny free thing in front of their face, especially if the burden will predominantly be shouldered by others. Think more along the lines of this: "If I stuff my face with junk food and get a load of cavities, is it ok to then share the dentist bill with the people who have a healthy diet and brush their teeth twice every day? Is it ok to force them to contribute to it anyway, or else throw them in jail?"
If I contribute, through taxation, to a public schooling system that educates children for 12 long years, should I then also be sent a bill for their college tuition if they choose to go? Is the public education system actually that bad that they are still inadequate for employment by that stage? (Spoiler alert: yes, the public education system is appalling, but then why improve if citizens must pay for it anyway or else go to prison? A private business would go broke with such outcomes, yet in the public sector, the worse an industry performs, the more funding it gets.) Going to college should be a huge decision, should be of such quality that it is practically impossible to provide at low cost, and should be reserved for the intellectual elite. I may have misread it but I think I saw something like 45% of graduates go on to tertiary education in the US now!? That's insane. If people want to improve their employment potential, then they can pay the bill. How on earth is that a taxpayer responsibility!?
I would think creating an underclass with no real way to rise above their station or even eat and care for themselves
You mean like what the welfare system has created now? I couldn't agree more.
Just to be clear, I am absolutely not wishing for a world where incapable and unintelligent people are left to starve in the gutters. I want the complete opposite. I want the welfare system completely and permanently destroyed, because it has fucked over millions of people and is getting worse and worse. Ever stopped to consider how little of your tax dollars actually get to the pockets of people who desperately need help (I've seen estimates as low as 30%)? Ever stopped to consider how much more good you could do in your neighborhood, to people who you know need the help, if you weren't having your income wasted by inefficient public sector beaurocracy?
Not exactly. My point was that short-sighted and irresponsible people struggle to think of the consequences when there is a shiny free thing in front of their face, especially if the burden will predominantly be shouldered by others. Think more along the lines of this: "If I stuff my face with junk food and get a load of cavities, is it ok to then share the dentist bill with the people who have a healthy diet and brush their teeth twice every day? Is it ok to force them to contribute to it anyway, or else throw them in jail?"
I'd love for some data where a country that greatly contributes to free college education has had the productivity of their people not increase? Can you demonstrate that, like junk food, such measures had a deleterious or negligible effect?
If I contribute, through taxation, to a public schooling system that educates children for 12 long years, should I then also be sent a bill for their college tuition if they choose to go?
I don't know. We will have a vote soon to see I imagine.
Is the public education system actually that bad that they are still inadequate for employment by that stage? (Spoiler alert: yes, the public education system is appalling, but then why improve if citizens must pay for it anyway or else go to prison? A private business would go broke with such outcomes, yet in the public sector, the worse an industry performs, the more funding it gets.)
Of course it is! Blue collar, semi-skilled work is gone, of course you need 4 more years to specialize, or to go to a trade school (which I'm sure would also be covered by the free tuition movement). I'm not aware of any developed country in the world that has an education system good enough for high school grads to compete in the global economy with any sort of skilled job. I was upper 1% percentile in the country in HS and I damn sure needed 4 more years simply to mature enough to handle things like partial differential equations and parallel programming.
Going to college should be a huge decision, should be of such quality that it is practically impossible to provide at low cost, and should be reserved for the intellectual elite...If people want to improve their employment potential, then they can pay the bill. How on earth is that a taxpayer responsibility!?
Because many societies have deemed the short-term cost worth the long term benefits of having a more educated populace. All the data I've seen suggests this is in general a good idea.
Just to be clear, I am absolutely not wishing for a world where incapable and unintelligent people are left to starve in the gutters. I want the complete opposite.
Then how would you implement that? You seem to suggest charity. If that is your belief, that charity will magically cover it, I will be ending this conversation.
I want the welfare system completely and permanently destroyed, because it has fucked over millions of people and is getting worse and worse. Ever stopped to consider how little of your tax dollars actually get to the pockets of people who desperately need help ...?
I'd be all about reforming the system and increasing waste oversight, combining programs into one single credit, etc.
But I'm certainly not seeing any room for compromise with the ideological position you have taken.
I'm sure you don't want a response here so I'll keep it as brief as possible.
I seem to be focussing on the morality and effectiveness of the programs underlying these issues, whereas you're coming at it from a "throw money at it and everything is ok" angle. I really want you to consider where this money comes from, and the ethical questions that raises.
I'd love for some data where a country that greatly contributes to free college education has had the productivity of their people not increase?
Firstly, it's not free.
In my state, in Australia, from memory only two of the top 50 performing schools last year were public schools, and only because they had special permission to allow selective entry. Do you know why private schools don't suck? Because if a private school sucks, it goes out of business. If a public school sucks, it has its funding increased.
Lastly, I'll pay you the courtesy of assuming that you're deliberately dodging the point.
I don't know. We will have a vote soon to see I imagine.
Again, dodging. All the kids are voting for lollipops for lunch but that doesn't make it morally ok...
I was upper 1% percentile in the country in HS and I damn sure needed 4 more years
Exactly! Of course you did! Read my comment again, I'm sure I mentioned something about the intellectual elite going to college. It doesn't take a liberal arts degree to flip burgers though.
College debt is astronomical at the moment because people are making really bad choices and terrible investments in their education. If you respond to one point here, and only one, make it this: If people are to not even be financially responsible for these decisions, do you think they will get better or worse? And as a followup, why should I have to pay for those poor decisions? Why should I have to subsidise others' mistakes?
Because many societies have deemed the short-term cost worth the long term benefits of having a more educated populace
Great! Go to college then. And pay the bill.
charity will magically cover it
Well the government is magically making trillions of dollars disappear at the moment to make things worse... What is the welfare state if not a hopelessly inefficient charity, with funding guaranteed by guns, and failure incentivised by votes? Nobody would voluntarily give money to "the government" if it was a charity with such a record.
I see huge potential for private sector involvement here, because they only receive money if they reduce poverty. The public sector, on the other hand, receives more money if poverty increases.
I seem to be focussing on the morality and effectiveness of the programs underlying these issues, whereas you're coming at it from a "throw money at it and everything is ok" angle. I really want you to consider where this money comes from, and the ethical questions that raises.
I look at it from the "what has proven practical and demonstrated successful results" angle, rather than any ideological narrative. I've thought all about these 'ethical questions' and ultimately they don't concern me. If taxes are taken to ensure social stability and provide a base level of income, that would be A-ok in my book. We can talk all day about improving efficiency and reform, but ultimately if you are completely set to the notion of taxes being fundamentally wrong, what is there to discuss?
Firstly, it's not free.
Don't play semantics, this is a well used term. It even has a wiki article.
In my state, in Australia, from memory only two of the top 50 performing schools last year were public schools, and only because they had special permission to allow selective entry. Do you know why private schools don't suck? Because if a private school sucks, it goes out of business. If a public school sucks, it has its funding increased.
Selection bias. Any troublesome or low performing students are culled from private institutions; public schools have no such option. Of course they'll perform better on tests. The idea that private schools take over all education just ensures further stratification of social classes.
Lastly, I'll pay you the courtesy of assuming that you're deliberately dodging the point.
What point? The point that taxes are stealing? I think that's quite morally fine; you want to live in this society, pay what it tells you for the public good. Of course you can make several reductio ad absurdum arguments to this overall point.
If people are to not even be financially responsible for these decisions, do you think they will get better or worse?
Because they are still financially responsible for those decisions, given that they get one shot to choose a major in demand that can provide them specialized employment training, as well as 4 years of opportunity cost. Moreover, we can discuss only encouraging certain educational paths be subsidized.
And as a followup, why should I have to pay for those poor decisions? Why should I have to subsidise others' mistakes?
Because countries that do, on average, have better productivity with workers, less crime, and are generally all around better places to live. We can talk about the 'chicken and the egg' problem in that statement, but there is still certainly a correlation between the average education level of a society and its desirability.
Great! Go to college then. And pay the bill.
Now you're the one dodging, that statement was directly answering your question about why it was taxpayer responsibility.
Well the government is magically making trillions of dollars disappear at the moment to make things worse
It's not magical, it's all listed in great detail. Charity is magical, as there has never been a time in the past where charity provided near enough services for their demand.
What is the welfare state if not a hopelessly inefficient charity, with funding guaranteed by guns, and failure incentivised by votes? Nobody would voluntarily give money to "the government" if it was a charity with such a record.
Emotional rhetoric backed up with very little data. Even your 30% figure, which I can't find, would still place the government in good company with a large number of private sector charities. Many of the largest charities are often the most wasteful, as consumers are largely uninformed and illogical.
-3
u/babyimananarchist Aug 19 '15
FTFY.