4 ms·

>Why do you hate people who choose to spend time as they wish instead of being coerced into unwanted employment? Why should money be taken from my paycheck to

by tsotha 11y ago

>Why do you hate people who choose to spend time as they wish instead of being coerced into unwanted employment? Why should money be taken from my paycheck to support idle people who could be working? In general it's none of my business how people choose to spend their time, but if they expect me to pay their expenses it becomes my business and I have to ask why they can't go to work like I do.

sedachv 11y ago
> Why should money be taken from my paycheck to support idle people who could be working? In general it's none of my business how people choose to spend their time, but if they expect me to pay their expenses it becomes my business and I have to ask why they can't go to work like I do. You mean like retired people drawing a pension?
- tsotha 11y ago
  It's not the same. People drawing pensions are simply collecting on a benefit they earned earlier in life. In the US, anyway, if you don't pay in to the pension system when you're working you don't get a pension. Also, the exact amount of your check depends on what you paid in. The government take 8% or so of my paycheck every pay cycle, and when I retire I'll collect a pension because I paid for it. That's a whole different world than paying someone because they don't want to work.
  - sedachv 11y ago
    > The government take 8% or so of my paycheck every pay cycle, and when I retire I'll collect a pension because I paid for it. You are actually paying for the pensions of current retirees. The expectation for almost all pension schemes is that future taxes will fund your retirement. That's the issue behind the Social Security shortfall and the dramatic cuts in retirement benefits as part of austerity measures post-Great Recession in EU member countries. > That's a whole different world than paying someone because they don't want to work. By definition retirees are people who could still be working but choose not to. How about the disabled and the infirm? Those between jobs? The real issue you seem to have is the "I paid for it" part. Where in the economic cycle is this money extracted? Would you feel better if it came from taxes on corporate revenue? Out of sales tax on luxury yachts? The issue has been framed by trickle down ideologues as "this money comes from your paycheck!" What is the logic behind getting rid of anything that looks like income guarantees when it comes to you as a worker as opposed to an owner of a business? Step 1: Eliminate minimum wage/welfare/unemployment/whatever Step 2: ... Step 3: Your salary goes up! How does step 3 follow from step 1? Increased supply of labor is only going to bring your salary down.
    - EdSharkey 11y ago
      Soc security has a shortfall?? Congress SPENT the money in the fund. They're paying back the fund with "interest" from the general fund year-to-year. Had the funds been INVESTED and not STOLEN by our beloved congressweasels, soc security would be superstylin.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      >You are actually paying for the pensions of current retirees. Yes, everyone understands that. But it incurs a debt I will expect to be repaid. >By definition retirees are people who could still be working but choose not to. Absolutely. If they paid into the pension system they should be getting a pension. If not they need to rely on their savings. >How about the disabled and the infirm? Those between jobs? You're changing the question a bit here. We were talking about people who can work but don't. >The real issue you seem to have is the "I paid for it" part. I don't see why you think this is an issue. The money comes out of my paycheck. It's money that I could certainly have saved or used for some other purpose. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to provide for themselves and their families. And I don't mind helping people who can't do so for reasons beyond their control. But I have no interest in supporting people who don't want to work. I don't want to work either, but I drag my ass out of bed every morning, and I don't appreciate other people helping themselves to the fruits of my labor.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      The actual argument is: Step 1: Eliminate disincentives to work. Step 2: More people produce things of value. Step 3: We have more things of value that can be distributed. Do you believe that there is no additional productive labor to be done? I.e., it would be completely useless to build more community gardens, fix our "crumbling infrastructure" or provide free daycare for working mothers? (I'm being naughty, by stealing common left wing tropes as examples of things the idle could produce.)
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        You can do those things I guess. But folks don't want to pay for them. In the end its an efficient market, right? Clearly we'd all increase our standard of living if folks created more. Its just an equation involving what people are willing to do vs what folks with money will pay. Labor-intensive things have pretty much been priced out of a market. And our service economy means everything involves labor. Imagine McD's and friends automate the whole store. What do those millions working there for minimum wage do then? Gardening, daycare etc don't pay even that well.
EdSharkey 11y ago
My mind meta-boils your question down to: "can't I demand some results from the way my taxes are invested?" Is what we're discussing, floating the jobless/low earner-producer, 'investment' at all? I'd personally like to understand the doublethink and mental laziness that led sedachv to make that passive-aggressive rhetorical crack about yummyfajitas hating all the poor souls who choose not to work. The hard questions regarding govt spending for me are: * Is it healthy (societally, fiscally, spiritually) long term to consider government to be the charity that can only grow - the ultimate backstop for all bad things that can happen to its people? A charity with unquestionable power to implement its shifting, sometimes controversial/immoral/amoral, agenda? * Is it okay for the government to prioritize everything and therefore have no priorities at all? Should infrastructure be prioritized over military? What's the proper role of federal involvement in local schools? Should we cap or continue the folly of "non-discretionary" funding of entitlements that dwarf and crowd out all other federal spending? Ultimately, our allowing perpetual deficit spending is what makes this priorities-free dream that we are all living in possible. * how much of a service delivery role should government have given its track record? The perennial VA healthcare debacles spring to mind. And the raided soc security trust fund that should have been invested and grown, but has been busted since Johnson. Student loans and the skyrocketing college tuitions. Unintended consequences! At least [my favorite congresscritter] meant well. It fascinates me how smart people whose arguments in favor of government as 'the answer' to X can instantly shift their argument for X from a learned basis like statistical evidence/quoting an expert to a faith-driven, eye-squinting, chasm-leaping abstraction, or worse, emotional outbursts (frequently rude) - and sometimes ALL IN THE SAME BREATH. I find such people, like sedachv, troublesome and no fun at parties. We might be doomed.
- tsotha 11y ago
  >I'd personally like to understand the doublethink and mental laziness that led sedachv to make that passive-aggressive rhetorical crack about yummyfajitas hating all the poor souls who choose not to work. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around logic that assumes people who don't work by choice are entitled to the results of my efforts and yet have the gall to paint me as selfish for protesting.

by tsotha 11y ago

sedachv 11y ago

> Why should money be taken from my paycheck to support idle people who could be working? In general it's none of my business how people choose to spend their time, but if they expect me to pay their expenses it becomes my business and I have to ask why they can't go to work like I do. You mean like retired people drawing a pension?

tsotha 11y ago
It's not the same. People drawing pensions are simply collecting on a benefit they earned earlier in life. In the US, anyway, if you don't pay in to the pension system when you're working you don't get a pension. Also, the exact amount of your check depends on what you paid in. The government take 8% or so of my paycheck every pay cycle, and when I retire I'll collect a pension because I paid for it. That's a whole different world than paying someone because they don't want to work.
- sedachv 11y ago
  > The government take 8% or so of my paycheck every pay cycle, and when I retire I'll collect a pension because I paid for it. You are actually paying for the pensions of current retirees. The expectation for almost all pension schemes is that future taxes will fund your retirement. That's the issue behind the Social Security shortfall and the dramatic cuts in retirement benefits as part of austerity measures post-Great Recession in EU member countries. > That's a whole different world than paying someone because they don't want to work. By definition retirees are people who could still be working but choose not to. How about the disabled and the infirm? Those between jobs? The real issue you seem to have is the "I paid for it" part. Where in the economic cycle is this money extracted? Would you feel better if it came from taxes on corporate revenue? Out of sales tax on luxury yachts? The issue has been framed by trickle down ideologues as "this money comes from your paycheck!" What is the logic behind getting rid of anything that looks like income guarantees when it comes to you as a worker as opposed to an owner of a business? Step 1: Eliminate minimum wage/welfare/unemployment/whatever Step 2: ... Step 3: Your salary goes up! How does step 3 follow from step 1? Increased supply of labor is only going to bring your salary down.
  - EdSharkey 11y ago
    Soc security has a shortfall?? Congress SPENT the money in the fund. They're paying back the fund with "interest" from the general fund year-to-year. Had the funds been INVESTED and not STOLEN by our beloved congressweasels, soc security would be superstylin.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >You are actually paying for the pensions of current retirees. Yes, everyone understands that. But it incurs a debt I will expect to be repaid. >By definition retirees are people who could still be working but choose not to. Absolutely. If they paid into the pension system they should be getting a pension. If not they need to rely on their savings. >How about the disabled and the infirm? Those between jobs? You're changing the question a bit here. We were talking about people who can work but don't. >The real issue you seem to have is the "I paid for it" part. I don't see why you think this is an issue. The money comes out of my paycheck. It's money that I could certainly have saved or used for some other purpose. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to provide for themselves and their families. And I don't mind helping people who can't do so for reasons beyond their control. But I have no interest in supporting people who don't want to work. I don't want to work either, but I drag my ass out of bed every morning, and I don't appreciate other people helping themselves to the fruits of my labor.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    The actual argument is: Step 1: Eliminate disincentives to work. Step 2: More people produce things of value. Step 3: We have more things of value that can be distributed. Do you believe that there is no additional productive labor to be done? I.e., it would be completely useless to build more community gardens, fix our "crumbling infrastructure" or provide free daycare for working mothers? (I'm being naughty, by stealing common left wing tropes as examples of things the idle could produce.)
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      You can do those things I guess. But folks don't want to pay for them. In the end its an efficient market, right? Clearly we'd all increase our standard of living if folks created more. Its just an equation involving what people are willing to do vs what folks with money will pay. Labor-intensive things have pretty much been priced out of a market. And our service economy means everything involves labor. Imagine McD's and friends automate the whole store. What do those millions working there for minimum wage do then? Gardening, daycare etc don't pay even that well.

EdSharkey 11y ago

My mind meta-boils your question down to: "can't I demand some results from the way my taxes are invested?" Is what we're discussing, floating the jobless/low earner-producer, 'investment' at all? I'd personally like to understand the doublethink and mental laziness that led sedachv to make that passive-aggressive rhetorical crack about yummyfajitas hating all the poor souls who choose not to work. The hard questions regarding govt spending for me are: * Is it healthy (societally, fiscally, spiritually) long term to consider government to be the charity that can only grow - the ultimate backstop for all bad things that can happen to its people? A charity with unquestionable power to implement its shifting, sometimes controversial/immoral/amoral, agenda? * Is it okay for the government to prioritize everything and therefore have no priorities at all? Should infrastructure be prioritized over military? What's the proper role of federal involvement in local schools? Should we cap or continue the folly of "non-discretionary" funding of entitlements that dwarf and crowd out all other federal spending? Ultimately, our allowing perpetual deficit spending is what makes this priorities-free dream that we are all living in possible. * how much of a service delivery role should government have given its track record? The perennial VA healthcare debacles spring to mind. And the raided soc security trust fund that should have been invested and grown, but has been busted since Johnson. Student loans and the skyrocketing college tuitions. Unintended consequences! At least [my favorite congresscritter] meant well. It fascinates me how smart people whose arguments in favor of government as 'the answer' to X can instantly shift their argument for X from a learned basis like statistical evidence/quoting an expert to a faith-driven, eye-squinting, chasm-leaping abstraction, or worse, emotional outbursts (frequently rude) - and sometimes ALL IN THE SAME BREATH. I find such people, like sedachv, troublesome and no fun at parties. We might be doomed.

tsotha 11y ago
>I'd personally like to understand the doublethink and mental laziness that led sedachv to make that passive-aggressive rhetorical crack about yummyfajitas hating all the poor souls who choose not to work. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around logic that assumes people who don't work by choice are entitled to the results of my efforts and yet have the gall to paint me as selfish for protesting.