4 ms·

I don't have access to that information, and haven't known any studies to have been done. Assuming the statistics would fit your expectations, what would your

I don't have access to that information, and haven't known any studies to have been done. Assuming the statistics would fit your expectations, what would your point be?

shawndumas 16y ago
I want to see your expectations. I started by saying that not taking more of my money does not constitute welfare. You countered my point by saying that many people that later get paid out first paid in. So I am asking -- how many people? What ratio for paying in and taking out? You're saying that me keeping more of my own money (you know, the money I worked for) should be called welfare because I might take some of the money -- taken from me in the first place -- back. In effect: we all put in to a kitty. One day Cardboard holding, Camel smoking, Corner lollygagging, 'Carl' takes some out -- next day I take some out. Right? Well I am asking you; how much does 'Carl' put in and how much does he take out? It's easy for me to say I have tax withholdings and I know how much welfare I've used. What's your guess for the average 'Carl'?
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  My guess is that a specific number for who "deserves" what social investment is a chaotic system which cannot be quantified properly. And I would consider it an exercise in futility to determine a social theory based on something so chaotic. Conversely, I would suggest that my payment into a welfare system benefits me, since I am merely middle class, and cannot escape the detrimental social effects of abject poverty nearly as easily as the wealthy.
  - shawndumas 16y ago
    for the sake of argument let's say I agree with everything you said. Further, let's say I am so moved by your argument that, even though it doesn't seem like it, I now see that it is in fact better for all men for me to have even more of my money pilfered. what I still don't understand is why we should call pilfering my money from my hands should be called me receiving welfare?
    - michaelchisari 16y ago
      Is it possible that you find the word "welfare" to be an emotionally and politically loaded term? For instance, libraries exist as a form of social welfare.
      - shawndumas 16y ago
        so all this time you where primarally talking about roads and libraries?
        michaelchisari 16y ago
        Nowhere near that narrow. I'm talking about the totality of the social contract.
        shawndumas 16y ago
        for the sake of clarity: could you tell me what you think should be the upper bound as a percentage of my income in this social contract should entail?
        michaelchisari 16y ago
        Since I agree with Thomas Paine's view on the necessity of progressive taxation, what you specifically are taxed would be dependent on your income, but given the extraordinary circumstances (two major wars, numerous conflicts, near economic collapse, etc), I would support a temporary 90% tax rate on the upper income brackets similar to what Eisenhower enacted in order to pay down the debts and make major necessary social investments (education, infrastructure, etc). That said, I favor the Nordic social democracies to be good economic models, as they have been proven to support greater class mobility than the current U.S. system. Norway, for instance, ranges from 0-49% tax rates. However, as this may be relevant to the important point that you would like to make, I don't think my personal views on the proper rate of taxation take away from the need to recognize the importance of the existence of economic social relationships.

I don't have access to that information, and haven't known any studies to have been done. Assuming the statistics would fit your expectations, what would your point be?

shawndumas 16y ago

I want to see your expectations. I started by saying that not taking more of my money does not constitute welfare. You countered my point by saying that many people that later get paid out first paid in. So I am asking -- how many people? What ratio for paying in and taking out? You're saying that me keeping more of my own money (you know, the money I worked for) should be called welfare because I might take some of the money -- taken from me in the first place -- back. In effect: we all put in to a kitty. One day Cardboard holding, Camel smoking, Corner lollygagging, 'Carl' takes some out -- next day I take some out. Right? Well I am asking you; how much does 'Carl' put in and how much does he take out? It's easy for me to say I have tax withholdings and I know how much welfare I've used. What's your guess for the average 'Carl'?

michaelchisari 16y ago
My guess is that a specific number for who "deserves" what social investment is a chaotic system which cannot be quantified properly. And I would consider it an exercise in futility to determine a social theory based on something so chaotic. Conversely, I would suggest that my payment into a welfare system benefits me, since I am merely middle class, and cannot escape the detrimental social effects of abject poverty nearly as easily as the wealthy.
- shawndumas 16y ago
  for the sake of argument let's say I agree with everything you said. Further, let's say I am so moved by your argument that, even though it doesn't seem like it, I now see that it is in fact better for all men for me to have even more of my money pilfered. what I still don't understand is why we should call pilfering my money from my hands should be called me receiving welfare?
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    Is it possible that you find the word "welfare" to be an emotionally and politically loaded term? For instance, libraries exist as a form of social welfare.
    - shawndumas 16y ago
      so all this time you where primarally talking about roads and libraries?
      - michaelchisari 16y ago
        Nowhere near that narrow. I'm talking about the totality of the social contract.
        shawndumas 16y ago
        for the sake of clarity: could you tell me what you think should be the upper bound as a percentage of my income in this social contract should entail?
        michaelchisari 16y ago
        Since I agree with Thomas Paine's view on the necessity of progressive taxation, what you specifically are taxed would be dependent on your income, but given the extraordinary circumstances (two major wars, numerous conflicts, near economic collapse, etc), I would support a temporary 90% tax rate on the upper income brackets similar to what Eisenhower enacted in order to pay down the debts and make major necessary social investments (education, infrastructure, etc). That said, I favor the Nordic social democracies to be good economic models, as they have been proven to support greater class mobility than the current U.S. system. Norway, for instance, ranges from 0-49% tax rates. However, as this may be relevant to the important point that you would like to make, I don't think my personal views on the proper rate of taxation take away from the need to recognize the importance of the existence of economic social relationships.