3 ms·

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.
      - shawndumas 16y ago
        wait; 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 ago
        49% 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.
        shawndumas 16y ago
        Well the point was that I started by saying that you should not be calling the government not taking as much of my own money welfare. You turned it into the government taking more of my own money as being welfare. So in the end my initial statement still stands. You cannot call the government letting me keep my own money welfare 'cause no body's building libraries for me with that money, are they?!
        michaelchisari 16y ago
        I think the term "welfare" fully applies, because it pertains to the welfare of the society you live in. Again, I believe you're reacting based on an emotional response to what is often termed "welfare" by detractors of social programs All classes benefit from social welfare programs, albeit in different ways. If your tax dollars are not paid towards society you benefit from, but instead returned as a tax credit, that is as much a form of welfare as the person who pays into the system for 30 years and then receives disability, TANF, or unemployment benefits.

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.
    - shawndumas 16y ago
      wait; 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 ago
        49% 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.
        shawndumas 16y ago
        Well the point was that I started by saying that you should not be calling the government not taking as much of my own money welfare. You turned it into the government taking more of my own money as being welfare. So in the end my initial statement still stands. You cannot call the government letting me keep my own money welfare 'cause no body's building libraries for me with that money, are they?!
        michaelchisari 16y ago
        I think the term "welfare" fully applies, because it pertains to the welfare of the society you live in. Again, I believe you're reacting based on an emotional response to what is often termed "welfare" by detractors of social programs All classes benefit from social welfare programs, albeit in different ways. If your tax dollars are not paid towards society you benefit from, but instead returned as a tax credit, that is as much a form of welfare as the person who pays into the system for 30 years and then receives disability, TANF, or unemployment benefits.