A couple of days ago I stopped at the supermarket to pick up exactly two items. I ended up getting behind a lady with a grocery cart filled to the brim. While waiting in line I looked at what she had bought. Steaks, party trays, cases of Soda pop, etc. I thought to myself that her bill was going to be pretty high, and that she should have gone to the Save-a-lot around the corner 1/2 block away. Then it occurred to me that perhaps she wasn't paying her own bill. I watched closely when the clerk rang up the total and sure enough, the woman whips out one of those state welfare credit cards. I was quite irritated. The woman bought a lot of expensive stuff at a no discount retailer because she didn't care what it cost. The only reason *I* was in the store is because they had a special on chicken that day. *I* normally by my staple groceries at the save-a-lot store a 1/2 block away.
The Next day I went to WalMart to buy a coat and a pair of shoes for my daughter. I decided to go through the self checkout lane, and of course, there was someone in front of me. The lady was buying a bunch of food items and when it came time to pay for them, out comes the state welfare card. She also had cat food and some other stuff which she paid for in cash. Another annoyance. When it's finally my turn, I walk up to the scanner and try to scan my two items. Unfortunately, I can't find the UPC code on either one of them, and rather than tie up the line, I cancel the transaction and decide to go through the manned checkout line.
The shortest line I can find features this woman with two shopping carts filled to the brim. I watch her and her kids unload numerous and sundry items. I'm thinking the bill has to be over $300.00 . Sure enough, $345.27 . Out comes the State Welfare card, and the fingers punching in the numbers again. I thought to myself that I seldom go shopping, and especially not to WalMart, but in the space of two days, I got behind three different people, and all three of them were using the State Welfare card. None of them was paying for their own groceries!
I then thought, in rapid succession, "I wonder which party these people vote for?" and " Giving poor people money is the STUPIDEST thing a government can do." The don't know how to manage it, and when it's free, they have not the slightest inclination to manage it.
True story.
Welfare in action.
Keeping the proles from revolting has been a problem for government since the days of Rome. Probably before but the Roman data is better.
Two problems:
1. Not enough welfare - proles revolt
2. Too much welfare - taxpayers revolt
I wish I had an answer. I used to be a strict Libertarian. Now I'm a squish. Reality intruded. i.e. I read my history.
Two problems:
1. Not enough welfare - proles revolt
2. Too much welfare - taxpayers revolt
I wish I had an answer. I used to be a strict Libertarian. Now I'm a squish. Reality intruded. i.e. I read my history.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
Josh Cryer
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am
We were on food stamps at various times throughout my childhood, it saved us. But my parents were heavy smokers and they'd send us in to the store with a dollar food stamp and buy a 25 cent soda. Since back then they didn't have a method to give back fractional valued stamps, they returned cash, in the form of change.
Do this three or four times and the parents could get a carton of cigarettes. Yeah it was a dirty thing to do.
Anyway, modern food stamps are not susceptible to this problem since they use a credit card. Food stamp applications were at an all time high there for awhile. When people say it was a bad recession, they are not kidding. Plus I have a sneaky feeling a lot of people just wanted to "get paid" after seeing the exorbitant bailouts that the fatcats got, all the while giving themselves bonuses and whatnot. It's the whole privileged mentality our society has fostered.
I should say that personal deals with people are very common in the ghetto I'm familiar with, several times guys would come up to me and offer 1 dollar in food stamps for 50 cents in cash. I didn't bite. One guy actually lowered it to 25 cents (1 dollar = 4 dollars in food). That was tempting simply on the absurdity of it all, but I didn't do it.
Fortunately I moved out of there after a bullet passed 6 inches from my face.
Do this three or four times and the parents could get a carton of cigarettes. Yeah it was a dirty thing to do.
Anyway, modern food stamps are not susceptible to this problem since they use a credit card. Food stamp applications were at an all time high there for awhile. When people say it was a bad recession, they are not kidding. Plus I have a sneaky feeling a lot of people just wanted to "get paid" after seeing the exorbitant bailouts that the fatcats got, all the while giving themselves bonuses and whatnot. It's the whole privileged mentality our society has fostered.
I should say that personal deals with people are very common in the ghetto I'm familiar with, several times guys would come up to me and offer 1 dollar in food stamps for 50 cents in cash. I didn't bite. One guy actually lowered it to 25 cents (1 dollar = 4 dollars in food). That was tempting simply on the absurdity of it all, but I didn't do it.
Fortunately I moved out of there after a bullet passed 6 inches from my face.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
I have an answer. Make it simpler.MSimon wrote:Keeping the proles from revolting has been a problem for government since the days of Rome. Probably before but the Roman data is better.
Two problems:
1. Not enough welfare - proles revolt
2. Too much welfare - taxpayers revolt
I wish I had an answer. I used to be a strict Libertarian. Now I'm a squish. Reality intruded. i.e. I read my history.
- Get rid of Foodstamps
Get rid of Welfare
Get rid of Social Security
Get rid of Medicare
Get rid of Medicaid
Get rid of the Minimum Wage
Get rid of Public Housing
Get rid of Federal Manipulation of States
Get rid of traditional Income Tax
Get rid of Big Government picking winners and losers.
- New Flat Income Tax (28%) - seperate pool. Not in general fund.
From this new Income Tax, pay EVERYONE eighteen years of age or older equally regardless of need. Currently approximately 14K per year.
-
alexjrgreen
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
- Location: UK
"One size fits all" just doesn't work.MSimon wrote:Keeping the proles from revolting has been a problem for government since the days of Rome. Probably before but the Roman data is better.
Two problems:
1. Not enough welfare - proles revolt
2. Too much welfare - taxpayers revolt
I wish I had an answer. I used to be a strict Libertarian. Now I'm a squish. Reality intruded. i.e. I read my history.
Roughly speaking, the two thirds of people within one standard deviation of the mean (by income or ability) expect to be treated the same and left alone to make their own way.
The less able may need some help and the more able can usually help them.
Ars artis est celare artem.
Yes. Now how to get from here to there. And what to do in the transition.alexjrgreen wrote:"One size fits all" just doesn't work.MSimon wrote:Keeping the proles from revolting has been a problem for government since the days of Rome. Probably before but the Roman data is better.
Two problems:
1. Not enough welfare - proles revolt
2. Too much welfare - taxpayers revolt
I wish I had an answer. I used to be a strict Libertarian. Now I'm a squish. Reality intruded. i.e. I read my history.
Roughly speaking, the two thirds of people within one standard deviation of the mean (by income or ability) expect to be treated the same and left alone to make their own way.
The less able may need some help and the more able can usually help them.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
I've seen similar situations at stores... but then there are also people who genuinely are down on their luck, genuinely need some help, and are genuinely looking for a new job or doing job retraining to get a new job.
Very difficult problem to solve. As MSimon says, if you read a lot of history you will see just how difficult...
Flat tax looks very good on the surface. I had a phase several years ago where I was a flat tax supporter. But there are a lot of issues.
There is the problem MSimon outlined - not enough welfare, proles revolt; too much welfare, taxpayers revolt.
Complicating the matter is that modern states are getting very expensive to run. Infrastructure such as freeways with gigantic, multi-level interchanges, health care systems (whether or not it's socialized, it's still one of the biggest items in the budget for the U.S. and a bunch of other Western countries), modern militaries, space programs etc.
The Roman empire provided some "welfare" for the citizens of the city of Rome in the form of free grain. Apart from that it had some aqueducts, viaducts, and roads - but slave or military labor could be used to build those for "free" (the soldiers were paid, of course, but unless you wanted to disband legions you weren't currently using, you still had to pay them, and roads also had a military use, so...) Fortifications, again built by soldiers. A navy. Some government bureaucracy for communications, infrastructure upkeep and tax collection. But most of those are pretty straightforward functions, with economies of scale. All legionaries were equipped pretty much the same. You weren't keeping a branch of an aerospace industry going to support, say, a few hundred of a specific type of jet fighter. Taxes would only really go up if: (1) Some emperor wanted to build lots of monuments; (2) The state was trying to pay off lots of barbarians and the Persians to go away, instead of actually fighting them.
In the feudal system, of course, most relationships were between serfs and the local lords, with towns taking some taxes on freemen and guilds looking out for their members. In the early modern system, things weren't too different from the Roman situation. Britain hit the brick wall of rising military expenditures in the 1760s, after the Seven Years' War made it a world superpower. That caused one of the problems leading to the American Revolution: taxing the Colonists to pay for a standing army in North America in case the French ever came back...
But the functions of the state have been getting more and more demanding. Sure, productivity has also increased as new technologies let people do more stuff, more efficiently. But it's a neck-and-neck race. If the state tries to do much more, it will be unsustainable. Taxpayers will revolt, but... a lot of taxpayers also seem to expect the state to provide all sorts of services, without really being aware of how much they cost.
Very difficult problem to solve. As MSimon says, if you read a lot of history you will see just how difficult...
Flat tax looks very good on the surface. I had a phase several years ago where I was a flat tax supporter. But there are a lot of issues.
There is the problem MSimon outlined - not enough welfare, proles revolt; too much welfare, taxpayers revolt.
Complicating the matter is that modern states are getting very expensive to run. Infrastructure such as freeways with gigantic, multi-level interchanges, health care systems (whether or not it's socialized, it's still one of the biggest items in the budget for the U.S. and a bunch of other Western countries), modern militaries, space programs etc.
The Roman empire provided some "welfare" for the citizens of the city of Rome in the form of free grain. Apart from that it had some aqueducts, viaducts, and roads - but slave or military labor could be used to build those for "free" (the soldiers were paid, of course, but unless you wanted to disband legions you weren't currently using, you still had to pay them, and roads also had a military use, so...) Fortifications, again built by soldiers. A navy. Some government bureaucracy for communications, infrastructure upkeep and tax collection. But most of those are pretty straightforward functions, with economies of scale. All legionaries were equipped pretty much the same. You weren't keeping a branch of an aerospace industry going to support, say, a few hundred of a specific type of jet fighter. Taxes would only really go up if: (1) Some emperor wanted to build lots of monuments; (2) The state was trying to pay off lots of barbarians and the Persians to go away, instead of actually fighting them.
In the feudal system, of course, most relationships were between serfs and the local lords, with towns taking some taxes on freemen and guilds looking out for their members. In the early modern system, things weren't too different from the Roman situation. Britain hit the brick wall of rising military expenditures in the 1760s, after the Seven Years' War made it a world superpower. That caused one of the problems leading to the American Revolution: taxing the Colonists to pay for a standing army in North America in case the French ever came back...
But the functions of the state have been getting more and more demanding. Sure, productivity has also increased as new technologies let people do more stuff, more efficiently. But it's a neck-and-neck race. If the state tries to do much more, it will be unsustainable. Taxpayers will revolt, but... a lot of taxpayers also seem to expect the state to provide all sorts of services, without really being aware of how much they cost.
If you insist on forcing people to give for what should be charities, offer 100% deduction from taxes for donation to registered charities. United Way has 90% or greater of donations that end up in the hands of people it intends to help. Government is lucky to deliver 10%. That is a factor of 9. It also puts some sanity into the giving. If you don't like how the money is being handled, give it to some other organization, or earmark it. As money for the government programs disappears to charities, tell the government employees to find another job.
Warren Buffet said the rich should be paying more taxes, but guess where he gave his money? To the government? No, to a charity he helped set up. What a hypocrite.
The point is anything is better than giving it to a government bureaucrat. Everybody knows it, lefty liberals just won't admit it.
Warren Buffet said the rich should be paying more taxes, but guess where he gave his money? To the government? No, to a charity he helped set up. What a hypocrite.
The point is anything is better than giving it to a government bureaucrat. Everybody knows it, lefty liberals just won't admit it.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
-
Josh Cryer
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am
Actually, that makes the tax code the criminal. Efficient reallocation of failed owners' resources ASAP is the only way to squeeze more out of the system.MSimon wrote:Warren Buffet is a criminal. He feeds off properties and businesses distressed by the tax code.Warren Buffet said the rich should be paying more taxes, but guess where he gave his money?
What would your alternative be? A GM-style bailout-takeover by Unka Sham for every failed biz?
Help Keep the Planet Green! Maximize your CO2 and CH4 Output!
Global Warming = More Life. Global Cooling = More Death.
Global Warming = More Life. Global Cooling = More Death.
Diogenes, why didn't you just give them a piece of your mind. I would've, but then I'm not one of these reserved-type Brits. Are you?
People around seemed to get far more embarrassed than I do about me telling someone in public they're an ignoramous (for whatever reason - last one was some bilthering dimwitted woman who, whilst I'm letting a car manoeuvre out of a space, wellies her car inbetween everything and creates gridlock).
There again, you've got unpredictable folks with guns over there. Choose your target, e.g. woman with cat. Why was she buying cat food on the tax payer, but why didn't you challenge her on it?
You can try to fix injustice where it exists, and/or go to those who controls it. I do both. Once done, you've done your duty to society and if everyone did that then it'd be a better place. If you do neither, you have no recourse for complaint. Have you written to your local representative about it, at least?
People around seemed to get far more embarrassed than I do about me telling someone in public they're an ignoramous (for whatever reason - last one was some bilthering dimwitted woman who, whilst I'm letting a car manoeuvre out of a space, wellies her car inbetween everything and creates gridlock).
There again, you've got unpredictable folks with guns over there. Choose your target, e.g. woman with cat. Why was she buying cat food on the tax payer, but why didn't you challenge her on it?
You can try to fix injustice where it exists, and/or go to those who controls it. I do both. Once done, you've done your duty to society and if everyone did that then it'd be a better place. If you do neither, you have no recourse for complaint. Have you written to your local representative about it, at least?
-
Josh Cryer
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am
I would hope that Diogenes keeps his mouth shut because he doesn't know the circumstances behind these people getting their "welfare." The unemployed are at an all time high. Charities are completely tapped to the brink.
But if you go through life maligning those who you find inferior, please don't complain if one day they punch you in the face for it.
But if you go through life maligning those who you find inferior, please don't complain if one day they punch you in the face for it.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
which'd just go to show that the inferior rely on violence rather than rational communication. that's why they are the "inferior".Josh Cryer wrote:I would hope that Diogenes keeps his mouth shut because he doesn't know the circumstances behind these people getting their "welfare." The unemployed are at an all time high. Charities are completely tapped to the brink.
But if you go through life maligning those who you find inferior, please don't complain if one day they punch you in the face for it.
the superior, where outnumbered by the inferior, have always been set upon violently. it makes no difference. the inferior feel no need to have "a reason" for violence, it is in their nature. that's why they are "the inferior".
"excuse me, I notice you are on welfare so if it helps I can recommend the much cheaper shop just next door. that way you would end up spending less of the taxpayers money that helps out in these trying times you must be currently suffering with (you dimwit)"
for bad to flourish, the good merely have to say nowt. don't bother stating the issue if you're not bothered to do anything about it. be a sheep.
What galls me is his dishonesty. He does not call for repeal of the death tax because of x, y, and z. He wants to make it bigger. That makes him a rent seeker.Brian H wrote:Actually, that makes the tax code the criminal. Efficient reallocation of failed owners' resources ASAP is the only way to squeeze more out of the system.MSimon wrote:Warren Buffet is a criminal. He feeds off properties and businesses distressed by the tax code.Warren Buffet said the rich should be paying more taxes, but guess where he gave his money?
What would your alternative be? A GM-style bailout-takeover by Unka Sham for every failed biz?
As to the rest. Given the current situation he performs a service. As you point out.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.