Welfare in America (U.S.)

[SpellAndShield]

Taxation is use of government force. It is coercion, as soon as you admit that then your position could be defensible as long as you conceded that coercion is necessary for the 'good' of society. I have no desire to pay an income tax and even less to engage in the mockery of taxation without representation that is currently the case in the US. Remember, your tax dollars are possibly being spent on dropping bombs on a bunch of chilren in Yemen and Pakistan as we speak.You want a gigantic juggernaut government, I don't, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Taxation I guess is government force. I don't see why you would rather have a lawless society.

 

I don't support the wars, I support the good use of government taxation. I also never said I want a large government.

 

Read my above post. It is not lawlessness, it is abotu shrinking the government to confines of the Constitution, which is violated on a daily basis.

[marharth]

Taxation is use of government force. It is coercion, as soon as you admit that then your position could be defensible as long as you conceded that coercion is necessary for the 'good' of society. I have no desire to pay an income tax and even less to engage in the mockery of taxation without representation that is currently the case in the US. Remember, your tax dollars are possibly being spent on dropping bombs on a bunch of chilren in Yemen and Pakistan as we speak.You want a gigantic juggernaut government, I don't, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Taxation I guess is government force. I don't see why you would rather have a lawless society.

 

I don't support the wars, I support the good use of government taxation. I also never said I want a large government.

 

Read my above post. It is not lawlessness, it is abotu shrinking the government to confines of the Constitution, which is violated on a daily basis.

If you don't have a tax system your government will never run. That is my point.

 

I don't think we need to shrink anything, we need to fix what is being violated and follow it. If that leads to government growth, fine. If it leads to the government shrinking, that is also fine.

 

Eventually the Constitution will be nothing more then a piece of history. The country won't be able to follow a 200 year old document for years on end without drastically changing it over time. Hell, the original Constitution was nothing like the one now. It will keep changing over time, that might be good or bad.

[SpellAndShield]

Taxation is use of government force. It is coercion, as soon as you admit that then your position could be defensible as long as you conceded that coercion is necessary for the 'good' of society. I have no desire to pay an income tax and even less to engage in the mockery of taxation without representation that is currently the case in the US. Remember, your tax dollars are possibly being spent on dropping bombs on a bunch of chilren in Yemen and Pakistan as we speak.You want a gigantic juggernaut government, I don't, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Taxation I guess is government force. I don't see why you would rather have a lawless society.

 

I don't support the wars, I support the good use of government taxation. I also never said I want a large government.

 

Read my above post. It is not lawlessness, it is abotu shrinking the government to confines of the Constitution, which is violated on a daily basis.

If you don't have a tax system your government will never run. That is my point.

 

I don't think we need to shrink anything, we need to fix what is being violated and follow it. If that leads to government growth, fine. If it leads to the government shrinking, that is also fine.

 

Eventually the Constitution will be nothing more then a piece of history. The country won't be able to follow a 200 year old document for years on end without drastically changing it over time. Hell, the original Constitution was nothing like the one now. It will keep changing over time, that might be good or bad.

 

That's why we can amend the Constitution. That is what constitutional amendments are there for.

[HeyYou]

A society based on volunteerism would never work. Humans are too selfish, and most won't spend THEIR hard earned cash to help someone they don't know.

 

If you want to see the welfare rolls reduced, how about the government revokes a number of laws that give great benefit to corporations for off-shoring jobs? Put america back to work, and there will be less need for welfare, and also increased revenues from the taxes that are already in place. There are ALWAYS going to be disadvantage folks, that for whatever reason, cannot support themselves. The programs you find so abhorrent were put in place after the great depression to avoid a great deal of hardships and sufferings that happened at the time, since there WEREN'T any 'safety nets'.

[LadyMilla]

A society based on volunteerism would never work. Humans are too selfish, and most won't spend THEIR hard earned cash to help someone they don't know.

 

If you want to see the welfare rolls reduced, how about the government revokes a number of laws that give great benefit to corporations for off-shoring jobs? Put america back to work, and there will be less need for welfare, and also increased revenues from the taxes that are already in place. There are ALWAYS going to be disadvantage folks, that for whatever reason, cannot support themselves. The programs you find so abhorrent were put in place after the great depression to avoid a great deal of hardships and sufferings that happened at the time, since there WEREN'T any 'safety nets'.

 

There are good intentions in your post but you seem to forget that those corporations, or rather, the elite that owns them, pays most of the taxes and run the government as a result. And those companies are the prime example of the principle "Capital knows no loyalty". If costs can be reduced by moving operations to India, they will do it. If human labor can be replaced by robots, they will do it. The world economy, or at least the most influential part of it, is now built on the idea of the free movement of goods, capital and labor. They fought hard to dismantle trade barriers - now is the time for backlash. Capital is like a living organism that wants to survive and seeks the most beneficial environment for its existence. If a country provides a better knowledge/skill-to-costs ratio, the capital will move there. Menial and low-skill jobs are moved to countries where the wages paid are sufficient for the local workers to sustain themselves, but would be largely inadequate in highly developed countries where not only wages, but the costs of living are also much higher. Companies move to tax paradises if the government tries to increase their contribution to the budget. We, both the people living in the US and those of other countries with a free market economy baked something that tasted fine until they were on the receiving end of its benefits.

 

The capital - or rather the owners of capital - should be made financially interested in creating jobs within the US. Unless, of course, you want to introduce trade barriers again, and keep the capital at home with legislative measures - but that would go against the whole idea of free market (even though I am not averse to throwing out well established ideas when the situation dictates).

 

 

 

[HeyYou]

A society based on volunteerism would never work. Humans are too selfish, and most won't spend THEIR hard earned cash to help someone they don't know.

 

If you want to see the welfare rolls reduced, how about the government revokes a number of laws that give great benefit to corporations for off-shoring jobs? Put america back to work, and there will be less need for welfare, and also increased revenues from the taxes that are already in place. There are ALWAYS going to be disadvantage folks, that for whatever reason, cannot support themselves. The programs you find so abhorrent were put in place after the great depression to avoid a great deal of hardships and sufferings that happened at the time, since there WEREN'T any 'safety nets'.

 

There are good intentions in your post but you seem to forget that those corporations, or rather, the elite that owns them, pays most of the taxes and run the government as a result. And those companies are the prime example of the principle "Capital knows no loyalty". If costs can be reduced by moving operations to India, they will do it. If human labor can be replaced by robots, they will do it. The world economy, or at least the most influential part of it, is now built on the idea of the free movement of goods, capital and labor. They fought hard to dismantle trade barriers - now is the time for backlash. Capital is like a living organism that wants to survive and seeks the most beneficial environment for its existence. If a country provides a better knowledge/skill-to-costs ratio, the capital will move there. Menial and low-skill jobs are moved to countries where the wages paid are sufficient for the local workers to sustain themselves, but would be largely inadequate in highly developed countries where not only wages, but the costs of living are also much higher. Companies move to tax paradises if the government tries to increase their contribution to the budget. We, both the people living in the US and those of other countries with a free market economy baked something that tasted fine until they were on the receiving end of its benefits.

 

The capital - or rather the owners of capital - should be made financially interested in creating jobs within the US. Unless, of course, you want to introduce trade barriers again, and keep the capital at home with legislative measures - but that would go against the whole idea of free market (even though I am not averse to throwing out well established ideas when the situation dictates).

 

 

 

 

My major malfunction with it all is, the government has not only made it possible, via free trade agreements, and such, but, they are also offering other incentives to do so, in the form of tax breaks for "creating jobs in developing nations".... Which translates quite literally to "MOVING jobs to developing nations."

 

The idea of free movement of goods, etc. throughout the world is a fine ideal, however, given that there are VAST differences in standard of living, cost of living, etc. between countries, currently, free trade is only advantageous to those countries on the lower end of the scale, and the corporations that take advantage of them. If you want to see the 'american way of life' continue, and not degrade to the level of some of the third world countries that are now getting out jobs, free trade, and tax incentives are going to have to go. One of the major problems our government has right now, is a lack of revenue. (and paying for four wars......) Corporations outsourcing what used to be middle class jobs to other countries, various tax breaks for the rich/corporations, is only going to make the issue worse. Not better. We have more folks on unemployment, and welfare roles now, than we ever have had in our past, yet corporations are still posting record profits. Jobs in most areas are extremely difficult to come by, and domestic manufacturers are suffering, because the folks that used to be middle class, are unemployed, and can no long afford their products.

[LadyMilla]

My major malfunction with it all is, the government has not only made it possible, via free trade agreements, and such, but, they are also offering other incentives to do so, in the form of tax breaks for "creating jobs in developing nations".... Which translates quite literally to "MOVING jobs to developing nations."

 

The idea of free movement of goods, etc. throughout the world is a fine ideal, however, given that there are VAST differences in standard of living, cost of living, etc. between countries, currently, free trade is only advantageous to those countries on the lower end of the scale, and the corporations that take advantage of them. If you want to see the 'american way of life' continue, and not degrade to the level of some of the third world countries that are now getting out jobs, free trade, and tax incentives are going to have to go. One of the major problems our government has right now, is a lack of revenue. (and paying for four wars......) Corporations outsourcing what used to be middle class jobs to other countries, various tax breaks for the rich/corporations, is only going to make the issue worse. Not better. We have more folks on unemployment, and welfare roles now, than we ever have had in our past, yet corporations are still posting record profits. Jobs in most areas are extremely difficult to come by, and domestic manufacturers are suffering, because the folks that used to be middle class, are unemployed, and can no long afford their products.

 

 

The underlined part is debatable - people in countries on the lower end of the scale often complain that their government's policies to attract multinational companies to create jobs lock that country in poverty. (Obviously, there are a few countries that were extremely successful in boosting their own economy). Without a certain degree of protectionism, free trade competition can easily destroy less developed local industries and businesses, or transform them into subsidiaries of those multinational companies. All the while, the shareholders enjoy increased profits, even if the managers decide to lower the price of the end product to generate more sales and to increase competitiveness.

 

But you are right, if middle-class is 'given the shaft' in the developed countries, who will buy the products and services? The top 5% will not buy 1000 cars or dishwashers per capita to boost the economy.