5 ms·

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

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
Maybe this will help; are the following two statements contradictory in your mind? 1.) The government taking *more* money from me should be called welfare. 2.) The government taking *less* money from me should be called welfare. You see, I was trying to get you to argue both sides and lo-and-behold you did it. The next step was to have you either explain how both of those (to me at least) mutually exclusive statements can be true or you have to accept one or the other as true and reject the other. (Or you can also say that the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction is phooey...) You might be tempted to change the sense in which you are using the term welfare (I have noticed sacre quotes showing up in your last posts) but that's what i would called a fallacy of the fourth term. (And since you keep qualifying the term with 'social programs' I think it would be disingenuous to switch to the general second term and then back to the specific first without making it abundantly clear that you are doing so.) In my mind (and in most common dictionaries) welfare means a. governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need; or b. absolutely anything that aids or promotes anyone's well-being regardless of their prior need. (So at best you could say all of the first sense are of the second but you could not then say that all of the second sense are of the first. i.e. it would be a a concentric venn.) I thought that the article, you, and I where all using the term in the first sense but, once it became expedient to you, you seemed to switch to the second. The only other option as I see it is that you think it all belongs to the government and I should just be happy that they let me keep any of their money at all. And surely if I had it I wouldn't be as enlightened in my use of it anyway so it's really best for me if I just hand it over. But, and this is a very important 'but', the fact that you have declared that a 90% income tax rate is fine in your mind I now see that all hope of us becoming of one mind is utterly hopeless. I have no category that allows for that detestable state of affairs regardless of any circumstances. So, really, I think the best we can do is agree to disagree...
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  I was trying to get you to argue both sides and lo-and-behold you did it. Simply because, and I don't this this is difficult, but social welfare is not what is taken, but the result of what is done. I would hope at least you've gotten some sense from this the idea of considering your role as a small part in a greater social tapestry, than simply an argument about what percentage of your income should be taxed.
  - shawndumas 16y ago
    So, as you see it, my roll in society is to work hard so that I will have money that the government can then take by force? How 'bout the charity work I do, or the two homeless guys I got off the street and got jobs, or the orphanage on Kat Island I supported with groceries, or the goat and 2 chickens I sent this Christmas, or the tithes I donate that go to benevolence, or the family that lived with me for six months (a mother and her four daughters in our three bedroom house)? (And I mean it all and could share more!) Do you have any idea how much more I could help if the government would stop giving me 'welfare'? And since no matter whether they take my money or let me keep my money you'll still call it 'welfare' I guess everyone is on 'welfare' too, huh? But the thing that gets me is that I am supposed to thank my government for letting me keep what is my personal property to begin with. Or do you not believe in personal property either? (Or are we only supposed to call 10% of our money personal and the rest is the government's and that's why I should call them letting me keep it 'welfare'?)
    - michaelchisari 16y ago
      Who you decide to thank is immaterial. Public investment in infrastructure, education, etc., all public goods, is how you built your wealth. Your wealth is as dependent on society as anyone else. And while your charity is commendable, it is utterly undemocratic.
      - shawndumas 16y ago
        Right; and so that's why all my wealth belongs to the public. I got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

shawndumas 16y ago

Maybe this will help; are the following two statements contradictory in your mind? 1.) The government taking *more* money from me should be called welfare. 2.) The government taking *less* money from me should be called welfare. You see, I was trying to get you to argue both sides and lo-and-behold you did it. The next step was to have you either explain how both of those (to me at least) mutually exclusive statements can be true or you have to accept one or the other as true and reject the other. (Or you can also say that the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction is phooey...) You might be tempted to change the sense in which you are using the term welfare (I have noticed sacre quotes showing up in your last posts) but that's what i would called a fallacy of the fourth term. (And since you keep qualifying the term with 'social programs' I think it would be disingenuous to switch to the general second term and then back to the specific first without making it abundantly clear that you are doing so.) In my mind (and in most common dictionaries) welfare means a. governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need; or b. absolutely anything that aids or promotes anyone's well-being regardless of their prior need. (So at best you could say all of the first sense are of the second but you could not then say that all of the second sense are of the first. i.e. it would be a a concentric venn.) I thought that the article, you, and I where all using the term in the first sense but, once it became expedient to you, you seemed to switch to the second. The only other option as I see it is that you think it all belongs to the government and I should just be happy that they let me keep any of their money at all. And surely if I had it I wouldn't be as enlightened in my use of it anyway so it's really best for me if I just hand it over. But, and this is a very important 'but', the fact that you have declared that a 90% income tax rate is fine in your mind I now see that all hope of us becoming of one mind is utterly hopeless. I have no category that allows for that detestable state of affairs regardless of any circumstances. So, really, I think the best we can do is agree to disagree...

michaelchisari 16y ago
I was trying to get you to argue both sides and lo-and-behold you did it. Simply because, and I don't this this is difficult, but social welfare is not what is taken, but the result of what is done. I would hope at least you've gotten some sense from this the idea of considering your role as a small part in a greater social tapestry, than simply an argument about what percentage of your income should be taxed.
- shawndumas 16y ago
  So, as you see it, my roll in society is to work hard so that I will have money that the government can then take by force? How 'bout the charity work I do, or the two homeless guys I got off the street and got jobs, or the orphanage on Kat Island I supported with groceries, or the goat and 2 chickens I sent this Christmas, or the tithes I donate that go to benevolence, or the family that lived with me for six months (a mother and her four daughters in our three bedroom house)? (And I mean it all and could share more!) Do you have any idea how much more I could help if the government would stop giving me 'welfare'? And since no matter whether they take my money or let me keep my money you'll still call it 'welfare' I guess everyone is on 'welfare' too, huh? But the thing that gets me is that I am supposed to thank my government for letting me keep what is my personal property to begin with. Or do you not believe in personal property either? (Or are we only supposed to call 10% of our money personal and the rest is the government's and that's why I should call them letting me keep it 'welfare'?)
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    Who you decide to thank is immaterial. Public investment in infrastructure, education, etc., all public goods, is how you built your wealth. Your wealth is as dependent on society as anyone else. And while your charity is commendable, it is utterly undemocratic.
    - shawndumas 16y ago
      Right; and so that's why all my wealth belongs to the public. I got it. Thanks for clearing that up.