4 ms·
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 a
by 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 agofor 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 agoIs 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 agoso all this time you where primarally talking about roads and libraries?
- michaelchisari 16y agoNowhere near that narrow. I'm talking about the totality of the social contract.
- shawndumas 16y agofor 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 agoSince 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.
- shawndumas 16y agowait; let me guess... and I would pay 49% and Carl would pay 0%, right? So his ratio would be 0:1 and mine would be 1:0.09 (for roads and libraries, of course. Can't forget my welfare benefits now can I?). Thank you for finally answering that question. And when I forked it over I should say, 'thank you for my welfare' and Carl will say, 'thank you for my wel-fairer'! Got it! . Well, either way 90%!? My friend I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
- michaelchisari 16y ago49% assumes you are in a very, very high income bracket. And 0% assumes that your mythical Carl would not be able to survive if he were taxes on what little income he had. You would benefit greatly from a society that does not allow Carl to fall through the cracks, this has been proven. Carl may use public infrastructure and a social safety net to pull himself out of poverty and set himself on a path of entrepreneurship. Conversely, you may find yourself without your high income, your savings eliminated, and in need of the social welfare that was used to help others out of a cycle of poverty. I'm not clear on what your important point was, but I think the point you try and make here is relatively short-sighted.