4 ms·

Calling people names because they disagree with a progressive tax structure or mandated health insurance isn't a convincing argument for your side. There are ar

by vor_ 14y ago

Calling people names because they disagree with a progressive tax structure or mandated health insurance isn't a convincing argument for your side. There are arguments to be made for and against these policies. In fact, it would be helpful for you to recognize that you are simply one side of a two-sided issue, each side of which believes they are obviously correct and that the other side is too uneducated to know how wrong they are.

rdtsc 14y ago
From a rational point of view I can understand how someone with a high income is against a progressive tax structure. How someone how has millions of dollars stashed in an account votes against a socialized basic care. I don't understand why someone living on government's check, and having poor health due to a financial inability to go the doctor, is voting against it. That is the issue. The problem I am describing is people being manipulated to vote against their own interest. Religious, fears, fake promises are all used effectively by those in power to recruit and manipulate others to do their bidding for them. That is what is scary.
- roel_v 14y ago
  "I don't understand why someone living on government's check, and having poor health due to a financial inability to go the doctor, is voting against it." Because maybe these people actually see the immorality of taking from others by force? "The problem I am describing is people being manipulated to vote against their own interest." So morality has no bearing on your position? "Fuck morality and others, as long as I get mine, and then some?" Seems like your position is in direct contradiction with the values you claim to defend.
  - wybo 14y ago
    Morality has a bearing on it. Not letting die, or for that matter, enabling a minimally humane life for everyone, is as important, or more important than the dictum against (potentially unjust) taxation. I see why in the US one might be against this, as I've lived there (working at a great IT job in central San Francisco), and have seen the poverty, and the human suffering (not to mention the smell of bums on the bus). Probably feels like there'll be no end to it, and then, in order not to feel guilty or bad, one closes ones eyes to it by believing it's their own fault; 'lazy smelly bastards!', but that doesn't change the moral reality of it. When judging oneself, feel free to be ruthless like Ayn Rand, when judging others, please be considerate, and take into account more than economics alone. In a way I evaded it too. Not by borking up my morality, but by voting with my feet when the opportunity presented itself. I am back in the UK now, and happy to be part of a society that treats it's weakest members well (or ok-ish at least). I wonder what it is between the US and Europe, that we have such different notions of (social) justice. Perhaps it is because Europe has more history, that we have seen over and over that wealth is often gained (and lost) by luck, that often it accumulates over dozens of generations in the hands of the few. While the US is only now developing it's own aristocracy. I even heard a British nobleman once vehemently argue that wealth is not deserved. So yes, being pragmatic we do allow the market to flourish, and do allow the wealthy to enjoy their wealth, but we don't confuse economics with morality, and moderate it's excesses through progressive taxation, some redistribution, and universal health-care. Human life and happiness trumps justice on the economic plane.
    - adamauckland 14y ago
      In other news, the UK now has the greatest divide between rich and poor in the west. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in-the-west-1329614.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in...
      - gadders 14y ago
        1) That article is 18 years old 2) Relative inequality is irrelevant as a measure.
  - gutnor 14y ago
    "immorality " That is a strange moral system you have in the US. In other countries, it is morally acceptable to take from the rich and redistribute to the poor. The reason is that in those countries, wealth and lack of wealth is thought to be a great part influenced by factor outside your control (chance). That is even backed by studies, if you are born in a poor families, you will have less opportunities than a rich kid in a rich family. Taxing the rich to help poor people in those circumstances is not to punish hard work to reward lazyness(=immoral), it is perceived as balancing unfairness in nature. On the other hand, there are other reason why a poor could be against taxing the rich that have nothing to do with some fluid concept like morality. It could be, for example, that they agree with the numbers and the theories presented by the party disagreeing with the taxes. After all, trickle down economic could work as described, why not, it is supported by important AND qualified people. What is missing in US politics (and generally in politic) is a scientific approach to the proposition. The level of proof required to submit political proposition as important as tax level is much lower than what you need to convince your wife to let you buy an XBox. That is the problem, voters are provided with vague theories with nothing to back them.
    - gadders 14y ago
      How is it moral to take somebody else's propety?
      - gutnor 14y ago
        Because that somebody else has agreed ?
        gadders 14y ago
        So taxes are voluntary? Awesome.
        gutnor 14y ago
        Indeed, US/EU allows you to voluntarily pay taxes above the legal minimum corresponding to your situation. I'm happy you find that awesome.
  - pyre 14y ago
    | Because maybe these people actually see the | immorality of taking from others by force? Based on this statement, the only form of taxes that you approve of is a 'pay whatever you want' system, right? Otherwise, all taxes is immoral, or at least any tax that is imposed on at least 1 person that feels it is too high. | So morality has no bearing on your position? One of the things being described is the people that hold positions like, "Don't you dare touch my socialist programs (Social Security, Medicare, etc), but vote against Obama because he's a socialist and socialism is evil... the Bible says so!"

by vor_ 14y ago

rdtsc 14y ago

From a rational point of view I can understand how someone with a high income is against a progressive tax structure. How someone how has millions of dollars stashed in an account votes against a socialized basic care. I don't understand why someone living on government's check, and having poor health due to a financial inability to go the doctor, is voting against it. That is the issue. The problem I am describing is people being manipulated to vote against their own interest. Religious, fears, fake promises are all used effectively by those in power to recruit and manipulate others to do their bidding for them. That is what is scary.

roel_v 14y ago
"I don't understand why someone living on government's check, and having poor health due to a financial inability to go the doctor, is voting against it." Because maybe these people actually see the immorality of taking from others by force? "The problem I am describing is people being manipulated to vote against their own interest." So morality has no bearing on your position? "Fuck morality and others, as long as I get mine, and then some?" Seems like your position is in direct contradiction with the values you claim to defend.
- wybo 14y ago
  Morality has a bearing on it. Not letting die, or for that matter, enabling a minimally humane life for everyone, is as important, or more important than the dictum against (potentially unjust) taxation. I see why in the US one might be against this, as I've lived there (working at a great IT job in central San Francisco), and have seen the poverty, and the human suffering (not to mention the smell of bums on the bus). Probably feels like there'll be no end to it, and then, in order not to feel guilty or bad, one closes ones eyes to it by believing it's their own fault; 'lazy smelly bastards!', but that doesn't change the moral reality of it. When judging oneself, feel free to be ruthless like Ayn Rand, when judging others, please be considerate, and take into account more than economics alone. In a way I evaded it too. Not by borking up my morality, but by voting with my feet when the opportunity presented itself. I am back in the UK now, and happy to be part of a society that treats it's weakest members well (or ok-ish at least). I wonder what it is between the US and Europe, that we have such different notions of (social) justice. Perhaps it is because Europe has more history, that we have seen over and over that wealth is often gained (and lost) by luck, that often it accumulates over dozens of generations in the hands of the few. While the US is only now developing it's own aristocracy. I even heard a British nobleman once vehemently argue that wealth is not deserved. So yes, being pragmatic we do allow the market to flourish, and do allow the wealthy to enjoy their wealth, but we don't confuse economics with morality, and moderate it's excesses through progressive taxation, some redistribution, and universal health-care. Human life and happiness trumps justice on the economic plane.
  - adamauckland 14y ago
    In other news, the UK now has the greatest divide between rich and poor in the west. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in-the-west-1329614.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in...
    - gadders 14y ago
      1) That article is 18 years old 2) Relative inequality is irrelevant as a measure.
- gutnor 14y ago
  "immorality " That is a strange moral system you have in the US. In other countries, it is morally acceptable to take from the rich and redistribute to the poor. The reason is that in those countries, wealth and lack of wealth is thought to be a great part influenced by factor outside your control (chance). That is even backed by studies, if you are born in a poor families, you will have less opportunities than a rich kid in a rich family. Taxing the rich to help poor people in those circumstances is not to punish hard work to reward lazyness(=immoral), it is perceived as balancing unfairness in nature. On the other hand, there are other reason why a poor could be against taxing the rich that have nothing to do with some fluid concept like morality. It could be, for example, that they agree with the numbers and the theories presented by the party disagreeing with the taxes. After all, trickle down economic could work as described, why not, it is supported by important AND qualified people. What is missing in US politics (and generally in politic) is a scientific approach to the proposition. The level of proof required to submit political proposition as important as tax level is much lower than what you need to convince your wife to let you buy an XBox. That is the problem, voters are provided with vague theories with nothing to back them.
  - gadders 14y ago
    How is it moral to take somebody else's propety?
    - gutnor 14y ago
      Because that somebody else has agreed ?
      - gadders 14y ago
        So taxes are voluntary? Awesome.
        gutnor 14y ago
        Indeed, US/EU allows you to voluntarily pay taxes above the legal minimum corresponding to your situation. I'm happy you find that awesome.
- pyre 14y ago
  | Because maybe these people actually see the | immorality of taking from others by force? Based on this statement, the only form of taxes that you approve of is a 'pay whatever you want' system, right? Otherwise, all taxes is immoral, or at least any tax that is imposed on at least 1 person that feels it is too high. | So morality has no bearing on your position? One of the things being described is the people that hold positions like, "Don't you dare touch my socialist programs (Social Security, Medicare, etc), but vote against Obama because he's a socialist and socialism is evil... the Bible says so!"