Problem is, that homeless bum isn't shanking me for food. People have no problem giving away food. We have food banks and homeless shelters. You euros act like our homeless have nothing available which cannot be further from the truth. The real problem is a lot of these folks do NOT want help. Just like those guys holding signs at the off ramp, they don't want your stupid food, they want your MONEY. Money for their booze or drug habits.
You say we should invest in treatment programs. I say great, if you can get these people to show up. Not all, but a lot of these people have families but for some reason or another, do not want to go back. A great deal of it is substance addiction and abuse. Some need serious mental help, which I have addressed in trying to fix insurance and medical care above. Again, I am for fixing people but that means if Joe Public is made to pay for it, then people need to be MADE to go.
Gated communities are for stopping criminals mostly. You know, the people who KNOW they are committing crimes and just do not give a fuck. If these folks were just desperate good Samaritans, they wouldn't resort to violence to achieve their goals. I am not afraid of the father that needs food for his family. I am afraid of that asshat piece of shit who is out there impregnating girls, getting drunk, and generally being a useless member of society.
The one thing we do NOT need to be is an enabler though. People need tough love and this kind of nanny state breeds dependency. Remember what I said about refugees choosing Germany or the UK over Spain or Italy? They choose Germany because you give MORE, plain and simple. And guess what, like you said, you have the AfD and many other far right guys getting real popular. Would the AfD have gotten as far as they have had Merkels government not been that damned inviting? Maybe the EU should have had a standard, across the board policy, in regards to benefits? Doesn't matter which nation you go to, benefits are the same.
what if we make failing a drug test punishable by death and then have it required by law for employers to drug test employees. BAM! war on drugs = over.
Problem is, that homeless bum isn't shanking me for food. People have no problem giving away food. We have food banks and homeless shelters. You euros act like our homeless have nothing available which cannot be further from the truth.
You say we should invest in treatment programs. I say great, if you can get these people to show up. Not all, but a lot of these people have families but for some reason or another, do not want to go back. A great deal of it is substance addiction and abuse. Some need serious mental help, which I have addressed in trying to fix insurance and medical care above. Again, I am for fixing people but that means if Joe Public is made to pay for it, then people need to be MADE to go.
Portugal found a way of doing that for drug users. While not everyone seeks treatment, the options available to drug users are there and their numbers have been shrinking a lot. The government also saved a lot of money by helping them, instead of spending more dealing with the consequences of seeing them as criminals.
This is the most recent article I found about that (from 4 months ago): http://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/
Whether or not you think addiction should be looked at like a disease, I think some of these people are worthy of help. Maybe it's just my kind nature, but I would like to think that a lot of people don't wake up one morning and decide they are going to get addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. My sister is addicted right now, and despite numerous attempts to reach out, she seems to not want help. Some people you just can't, and there is nothing you can do in that situation. To seek help, you must first admit you have a problem. Denial is a powerful thing.
@Black Rose retweet. I’m guessing everyone here has read the Black Parade, but I started using to cope, not because I was like “hmm cocaine addiction sounds like an interesting life goal”. I mixed amphetamines and alcohol in an attempt to numb the pain and probably subconsciously kill myself. But I wasn’t able to quit until I realized I had to. And sometimes that, unfortunately, takes a near death OD or criminal charges or both.
Maybe it's just my kind nature, but I would like to think that a lot of people don't wake up one morning and decide they are going to get addicted to drugs and/or alcohol.
No its usually other worthless people that get others addicted to drugs. which is what happened when my mom's bf got her addicted to meth.
and yes i understand that not all drug addicts are worthless and some are victims as is the case with my mom and her bf BUT if we use my plan to get rid of all the addicts then this will never happen again so... american government if you're listening...
I remember a story called Quitters Inc, from my favorite author, (though I cannot stand his politics)Stephen King.
Now I am not advocating such extreme measure but I would admit it does work. Hence treatment programs need to be forceful, get them clean and MAKE SURE they STAY clean. Monitor them, make sure they stay away from problem people/get those problem people into the program too.
Whether or not you think addiction should be looked at like a disease, I think some of these people are worthy of help. Maybe it's just my kind nature, but I would like to think that a lot of people don't wake up one morning and decide they are going to get addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. My sister is addicted right now, and despite numerous attempts to reach out, she seems to not want help. Some people you just can't, and there is nothing you can do in that situation. To seek help, you must first admit you have a problem. Denial is a powerful thing.
If they don't want to be addicted just don't fucking do it. I get it, we are humans, we have vices. But certain vices are just way the fuck out there. I mean, we are NMA. We do not NEED to try Fallout 76 to know its a PoS. We didn't need to try Fallout: PoS, to know it is shit. Some people are just WEAK. We need to love them but that love MUST be tough. The alternative is either them dying alone or taking other addicts/innocents with them.
I remember a story called Quitters Inc, from my favorite author, (though I cannot stand his politics)Stephen King.
Now I am not advocating such extreme measure but I would admit it does work. Hence treatment programs need to be forceful, get them clean and MAKE SURE they STAY clean. Monitor them, make sure they stay away from problem people/get those problem people into the program too.
If they don't want to be addicted just don't fucking do it. I get it, we are humans, we have vices. But certain vices are just way the fuck out there. I mean, we are NMA. We do not NEED to try Fallout 76 to know its a PoS. We didn't need to try Fallout: PoS, to know it is shit. Some people are just WEAK. We need to love them but that love MUST be tough. The alternative is either them dying alone or taking other addicts/innocents with them.
So what exactly is your solution? You've hit the same talking points without really saying anything all. So far you've just been asking rhetorical questions while simultaneously ignoring cited data because evidently that's not enough.
What is enough? Banning guns? Ok, let's entertain that. What similar bans have we enforced that did not strengthen black markets or end up having no effect?
You appear to hold the position that people shouldn't own or need to own rifles but handguns are ok. Alright. California (strict) has a murder rate by gun equal to Texas (lax). Can you explain that?
I explained what was wrong with that cited data and how it was as manipulative if not more than those it was a response of. I will admit suggestions hadn't been very present on my points (even if they have before) now because to actually talk solutions you need to settle on that there's a problem first, which there apparently isn't, or it's too insignificant to even bother.
Not sure how deregulation is gonna help black markets in anything but making them more speculative, thus less "effective" at serving as a cornucopia of armaments that is seemingly unstoppable. And, again, I've said it before, and it's moving the goalposts, as of right now at least. Off the top of my head, license tiers and not being treated like consumer goods would be one of a ver very big list of bullet (heh) points.
Not really said that, but that the way it should work would make people who need it be able to get them as they very well should. The right to self defense, believe it or not, isn’t something you invented over there.
I'm not sure how you're trying to pass Texas vs California as a point, when there's so many other factors than "just" gun laws when we’ve said over and over that avaleibility of firearms is a catalyst of existing or to happen violence. At face value they mean nothing, as you're asking somebdoy who is obviously not an expert on this specific thing and all the respective context necessary to have an informed opinion. For all I know, Texas' murder rate could have increased in the recent years from a smaller number, and Cali decreased from a bigger one. But looking at basic ass statistics, you can tell that Cali has 10 million more inhabitants and over double the population density of Texas. Pop density is naturally tied to, well, the chance to being close to anyone who would murder you. Less urbanized areas thus less and, or smaller scale crime. If your data, which of course only have your word for, is a %, the actual amount of heads per gun murder would be bigger in Texas, and arguably less acceptable, if we were to look at the real numbers and their evolution.
I not only find this adorably naive (or giving you credit, purposefully disingenuous) but pretty ironic considering this very forum's foundations and purpose is spite and discontent towards a particular AAA company and a major sector of industry, their handling of "certain" properties and ethics. And this is just with a media and entertainment company. There's companies who are actively making the world worse with their sheer existance, from drugs and arms manufacturers, animal exploitation driving species older than ours extient, and, as it has been proven, being real life Bond villains without the glamour. They break laws, they abuse and exploit, and the best part is that it was on the manual all along. The only purpose of them is to become bigger, and bigger, and bigger. That you shill for them in some sort of misguided wish fulfillment fantasy, solidarity, or misplaced admiration, doesn't change the fact that they see you as either a worker, a consumer, or both. Neo liberalism isn't the epitome of freedom, it's the counter force to what the world *needs* and has needed for a long time. Not sure how could you come off Fallout, see merchandise as the only artifacts left of the old world, and think "yeah this isn't getting a theme across whatsoever".
There ya go. 'Fuck you I got mine', is deeply ingrained in American culture. Thing is, if that were the ONLY thing ingrained in American culture, we would be this sort of post-apocalyptic warzone you mention so often, yet you are so terribly wrong. Thing is, in this country we believe that altruism is a CHOICE. Not a club for the government to wield and be beaten by. Nothing stops people who need help with setting up Go Fund Me pages.
And you missed the second part, we are a nation of 320 MILLION people. Kind of makes free shit hard to pay for and even harder to legislate, since Americans as a whole, find nanny states problematic.
That it's broken by design doesn't mean it's not, my guy. But yes, I know that some people like being screwed over, see above.
I've never said it's a literal warzone or whatever though. If anything, those who feel warranted that they should be entitled to be equipped to rob banks at all times are the ones who do. I'd only be puting myself in their place.
"Nothing stops people who need help with setting up Go Fund Me pages." I see what you did there. At least, I think I did:
Also, population argument? My guy, Electronic Arts (for an example) being literally expropiated would ensue at least 4 billion dollars. More people also means more concentration of wealth. Where the hell do you think all the money those people don't have goes, Bitcoin investments?
On the following responses, you all seem to parrot exactly what keeps things as they are. That somehehow, at some point, a meritocracy was set, where people need to meet some sort of arbitrary treshold of "worth" to the state, mainly as workers. Like if the disgusting amounts of money that can literally not be burned fast enough in amenities and luxuries that those superrich will never even be physically be able to use, are somehow fair and just to be hoarded, but it's okay because maybe, in some parallel universe, that could be me! That the relatively minuscule amount of money states have comparatively is wasted on making other countries suffer because they have resources that would make those companies that already basically own them may have something to spare, when they already skim and dodge whenever possible.
That uplifting the poor somehow means having them live in perpetual vacation is such a piece of blatant anti-welfare publicity I'm not sure how can anyone unironically repeat it.
I explained what was wrong with that cited data and how it was as manipulative if not more than those it was a response of. I will admit suggestions hadn't been very present on my points (even if they have before) now because to actually talk solutions you need to settle on that there's a problem first, which there apparently isn't, or it's too insignificant to even bother.
Not sure how deregulation is gonna help black markets in anything but making them more speculative, thus less "effective" at serving as a cornucopia of armaments that is seemingly unstoppable. And, again, I've said it before, and it's moving the goalposts, as of right now at least. Off the top of my head, license tiers and not being treated like consumer goods would be one of a ver very big list of bullet (heh) points.
Not really said that, but that the way it should work would make people who need it be able to get them as they very well should. The right to self defense, believe it or not, isn’t something you invented over there.
I'm not sure how you're trying to pass Texas vs California as a point, when there's so many other factors than "just" gun laws when we’ve said over and over that avaleibility of firearms is a catalyst of existing or to happen violence. At face value they mean nothing, as you're asking somebdoy who is obviously not an expert on this specific thing and all the respective context necessary to have an informed opinion. For all I know, Texas' murder rate could have increased in the recent years from a smaller number, and Cali decreased from a bigger one. But looking at basic ass statistics, you can tell that Cali has 10 million more inhabitants and over double the population density of Texas. Pop density is naturally tied to, well, the chance to being close to anyone who would murder you. Less urbanized areas thus less and, or smaller scale crime. If your data, which of course only have your word for, is a %, the actual amount of heads per gun murder would be bigger in Texas, and arguably less acceptable, if we were to look at the real numbers and their evolution.
The question is really who, of the two sources, has the correct interpretation of data. Is the NYT fairly making the comparison using hundreds of millions as the metric, or is the crime research source attempting a more accurate focus adjusted for population. It's fairly obvious that very few countries can compare when you skew the population. Make no mistake, I'm not attempting to minimize 370 some deaths as 'not that bad, really', but that the original assessment was blown out of proportion and the conversation is lopsided as a result.
I'm positive you mean regulation, but the war on drugs is more or less the proof of black markets (i.e Cartels) growing. It's not like a new entity needs to apparate to fill in the sudden demand for exotic, unregistered weaponry. That already exists north and south of the US. Even so, that isn't to mention the nature of trying to regulate machine shops and the growing 3D printing market (which arguably needs regulation). We can hypothetically, state-to-state, enforce a ban on rifles domestically, but we'll just cripple an economic sector here and empower countries south of the border.
I wasn't clear earlier but California v Texas is more about legislation and its effects on murder. The majority of murder by gun in California is committed with handguns, yet legislators have placed an alarming amount of focus on rifles because they want to appear as though they're busy rather than complacent. Our public education sector is crumbling (has been well before Trump), our recent Governor was so tight with money he squeaked when he walked, universities are becoming a revolving door for rich, international students, and tech sectors are starting to relocate from Silicon Valley (!) because it's cheaper to hire a Software Engineer in Texas (or anywhere else) than California.
A conclusion might be to just ban handguns but we lead into the black markets experiencing an upswing. Additionally, the majority of murder is already committed with stolen firearms so I'm not entirely sure where that leaves us. Rep. John Faso made a somewhat good point when he said that banning guns targets the wrong people (law abiding citizens). You can argue that ownership directly feeds stolen firearms, and thus reducing access would result in less guns stolen overall. However, we can't ascertain whether a. the gun was or was not stored properly or b. assuming the gun was stored properly (in a safe) the criminals didn't just take the safe and/or crack it open with a rare-earth magnet or some other means.
You know how it's incorrect to tell a rape-victim that s/he, they, x/her (w.e) had it coming for dressing sexy? I'd argue it's the same for gun owners when their property gets stolen and people come out in droves to tell them to either a. store it properly next time or b. don't exercise the right to own one in the first place. San Francisco's response to having your car broken into for a sweater is to not leave it in plain sight to begin with. We've casually segued into shifting the blame onto law-abiding citizens. I don't even know where to begin with how wrong this culture is.
@Crni Vuk I mean, the idea that “progress is only what I believe” is... a little close-minded, don’t you think? You’ve made a lot of good points, I just believe that freedom and safety can coexist. Again, New Hampshire. Flamethrowers. Third safest state in the Union.
I am not sure what you mean. I am actually talking about giving people MORE freedom, true liberty in the sense that you should have the freedom of making your own choices regardless of your income, a choice made under presure isn't a real choice. It's like as if someone told you that you HAVE to vote in the ellection, or you're facing legal consequences. Right now it's like someone is holding a gun at your head. In other words people often don't have a real choice when it comes to jobs and oportunities, like education or what lifestyle they prefer. Poor people simply don't have it. For obvious reasons. In our society money is equal to freedom. And that's what we have to change, very quickly, or we will be runing in to a lot of serious issues in the near future. Just as a small hint, the majority of us here, will not be sitting on the 'winner' side of the fence that seperates the rich from the poor.
This issue is only going to increase once artificial intelligence, automatisation and digitalisation start to make a real impact on the job market and the economy, we can see the effect already now with Uber, Dilveroo and many other digital companies changing the job market. They are lowering wages and shifting the risks to the employee, where you have to bring your own bike, car, paying for your own social services, if you're sick you earn no money and so on - you’re a mini entrepreneur, but without the advantages. And we havn't even talked about the more crazy inventions like IBMs wattson that might replace one day laywyers, doctors, maybe even some researchers, or the technology from Boston Dynamics and actually fucking brick laying robots.
And remember this, it's only the begining. We havn't even really started to really exploit it yet. All this automatons, AI etc. will be for human workers, what cars meant for horses 100 years ago.
We will see more and more jobs which are bellow the poverty line. The quality of jobs has degraded so much over the last 30 to 40 years. And no, you can't simply take a 45 year old truck driver who has spend 25 years driving a druck and turn him in to a project manager or programmer. This is a myth they told people already 20 years ago when they started to outsource manuacturing jobs, how this is such a great thing because (almost) everyone will get high paying, cushy jobs in service. The reality is, that we will have a massive number of people that will have simply no use in this new kind of economy and job market where even highly complex tasks can be done by machines and AI.
Yes, we have them but not nearly enough, they are constantly full, underfunded and usually in very bad shape. Besides this can't be really the answer to the issue. Oh, we have no reason to care about it, cuz there are shelters! I guess we have also no reason to care about smoking and eating unhealthy, since we can always take a chemo-therapy and get a liposuction.
The point I tried to make,was that poverty is simply put a huge factor in crime, drug addiction and other issues that really cost our society a hell lot of money. It's kinda strange how a concept that people even in the 50s and 60s understood, when the income tax was around 91% has to be taught again to people ... wealth inequality and poverty is cancerous to a society. There is even mathematical rules that apply here explaining why wealth is always concentrating on the top, regardless how hard people work. The Pareto Distribution for example, (...) Originally applied to describing the distribution of wealth in a society, fitting the trend that a large portion of wealth is held by a small fraction of the population, the Pareto distribution has colloquially become known and referred to as the Pareto principle, or "80-20 rule", and is sometimes called the "Matthew principle". Wealth inequality is an inherent part of our economies.
You say we should invest in treatment programs. I say great, if you can get these people to show up. Not all, but a lot of these people have families but for some reason or another, do not want to go back. A great deal of it is substance addiction and abuse. Some need serious mental help, which I have addressed in trying to fix insurance and medical care above. Again, I am for fixing people but that means if Joe Public is made to pay for it, then people need to be MADE to go
I am sorry to tell you this. But It doesn't work. And there is enough empirical data today to prove it. I am working in education and this view, that you have to work with sanctions/punishment, preasure and forcing people, is an old and outdated one. It doesn't really work in schools, education and it certainly doesn't work with adults not to mention that it's actually not how we should prepare people, particularly young ones, for the future where intrinsic motivation will become a lot more important. Teaching people how to learn, as they say and not just giving them subjects with the intention to reach a good grade/job/what-ever.
If you work with preasure and sanctions, it actually leads to people taking something, anything, regardless if it actually helps them or not and trying to find ways in how to abbuse the system - this is simply human, we all do that actually, regardless if we're poor, middle classs or rich. Look at the experiment done with the UBI in Kenia that I posted 2 or 3 pages ago. The truth is, that people acutally can make their best choices on their own usually, because they actually know their situation better than anyone else, like if they need better education, medication or what ever. You can not force people in to geting fixed. Does that mean some people will decide to sit on their asses and do nothing all day? Sure. But you have that already now as well, where they try to find every possible exploit so they don't have to work. That way you can at least make sure, they don't have to turn to crime eventually.
Yes, and they also serve in dividing the popluation, making social mobility more difficult and also very expensive, even for the people living inside it, as they have to run their own schools, hospitals, security service and so on. Which is the point I wanted to make. I know why people do it, it's just pretty much bad for everyone, even those that enjoy it as they would have more money and safety in a society that was more stable as a whole and inclussive with less poor people. Not to mention that it's also increasing the preasure on people inside those wealthy communities since they are always in fear of what might happen if they loose their social status.
Description: When a contributing factor is assumed to be the cause, or when a complex array of causal factors is reduced to a single cause. It is a form of simplistic thinking that implies something is either a cause, or it is not. It overlooks the important fact that, especially when referring to human behavior, causes are very complex and multi-dimensional.
Yeah right, I am sure the majority volluntarily choose to burrow trough trashcans for expired food. But it's not just the food. But a small information on that part, for anyone who cares to read it :
@Crni Vuk i understand what you mean in that regard, I just feel like implementing programs for the poor and homeless will result in that freedom of choice being taken from others, be it through higher taxation or what have you
Never said welfare means perpetual vacation. More like welfare is flawed and often incentivizes people not to work. Keep in mind, I am not saying welfare is BAD, I am saying it needs to be REFORMED. I have links on Crnis rebuttal.
Expropriation now? Problem with that is the slippery slope effect. So now the government can literally just take over private companies to get free cash? Sounds like robbery to me.
And no, I NEVER said there shouldn't be regulations in place to make sure the companies who cheat SHOULDN'T be punished. Tax loopholes and legal manipulation you say? Well then let us reform that shit.
In regards to arms manufacturing (at least in the military sense), well, if there are buyers, then there will be suppliers. If we don't do it, someone else will. You do know companies like Boeing and Raytheon provide jobs right?
Wages are a different animal. My issue with raising the minimum wage is that costs go up as well. Instead of arbitrarily just raising wages for everyone, lets remove stupid ass requirements to good paying jobs, like a college degree for example. Of course STEM and legal fields SHOULD require education but anything that requires on the job training should be exempt, SERIOUSLY.
Uplifting the poor? Could you be more vague? That is no different than saying shit like 'a living wage'.
If one wants to uplift the poor, then we have already discussed this. We can have public funded treatment programs that addicts should be MADE to go to. The same programs should monitor these individuals to make sure they stay clean and do not relapse. Same with mental health facilities. Many good paying jobs should have their degree requirements lifted. That alone should not only save a fuck ton of people from going into student loan debt, but free up their time to pursue and focus on their studies. Education needs to be reformed so that instead of relying on rote memorization and testing, we can focus on subjects and skills that the average person will need in life, like MONEY MANAGEMENT. We can also focus a little more on telling people not to be shitheads in general, not to have children when one cannot afford to do so. That robbing the local circle K, is retarded as that would inevitably lead one down to jail time or worse.
Go Fund Me
What? So your rebuttal is just a Trump meme?
I said I believe altruism should be a CHOICE, not some government tool to be forced on individuals. How difficult is that to understand?
Getting screwed over
Actually no, the very concept of 'Fuck you, I got mine', means if I make the good choice while someone else makes a bad choice, I win every time. It also means whoever made a bad choice is a fucking idiot and that behavior should not be rewarded.
Crni
First of all, America had much less people back then. We are talking a 20-30 year period, full of immigration.
Also, Europe was still rebuilding, giving American companies incredible leverage in market sector dominance. Things weren't so peachy as the post war countries rebuilt, and then started joining the global market. Japan and Germany is a prime example of this. After they rebuilt, companies like Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Mercedes and Volkswagen, they too entered the market, providing competition and the monopoly our companies once enjoyed was no more. Gone were the good times where car companies in Detroit made money hand over fist, due to their monopoly, and had to tighten their belts.
Again, same thing with Arnust. Uplifting the poor. You can scream buzzwords all day but what we need are solutions (and ones that do not require heavy handed government intrusion). Some government assistance is inevitable but it all comes down to how government works when it is involved.
A 91 percent tax is insane, unless you are still speaking of the ultra rich. Even then, as I have pointed out before, the money provided through taxation will NEVER be enough if the basic program is flawed beyond belief. I have brought up the Individual Mandate and how UHC would require a massive, across the board, tax hike. That is why I talked at length in ways we can reform the medical and insurance services sector. Reforms that will no doubt lower the cost for the average consumer. Reforms that can achieve our goals while keeping government interference to a minimum.
And NO, it is not like we have food banks and shelters, and poverty will go away. If you have been reading this thread, I have already proposed solutions to problems like crime, substance abuse, mental health issues, etc. Not everyone is a poor victim that can magically get better if they were just given a handout. Assistance go hand in hand with responsibility. People have to be FORCED, to go get treatment. People need to be encouraged to work, not incentivized to stay poor.
@Crni Vuk i understand what you mean in that regard, I just feel like implementing programs for the poor and homeless will result in that freedom of choice being taken from others, be it through higher taxation or what have you
Depends on who's facing those taxes. I know I know, taxes are robbery yada yada. But let us ignore that for a moment and let me ask ask me one question.
If I have a billionair and I take 90% of his wealth away, does that mean he's now poor?
I do not know any rich person that ever went bankrupt because they had to pay to high taxes. I think it was Warren Buffett who once joked about how he should write a book for his rich peers in how to survive with a few million dollars, as they seem to really struggle with that. He is also someone who's in favour of higher taxes for the wealthy and super rich.
There is more and more research pilling up as we see more academics studying this topic and they find a direct corellection between growing wealth and poverty. Trickle down economy, is a scam, it simply doesn't work. It never has. It never will. The richer the top becomes, the more is the number of poor people growing. There is a direct conection. And that's not some kind of accident or a conspiracy there is not one person behind the scene who's dictating this with the intention to controll everyone. It's simply how our financial system works, due to mathematical laws with interests, exponential growth and distributions. In an economic system like ours, you will always have a situation where the earning of money and income flows to the top, rather than the bottom creating imabalances which inevitably leads to periodical crashes.
For example, if a company like lets say Apple wants to increase their profit because the share holders demand an increase of a few % each year, then there are only relatively limited ways in how to achieve this. They can either sell more goods, or manufacture them cheaper. And from here you see all the effects that create so many issues right now. The need in expanding business, lowering costs, increasing the efficiency, the production etc. The critical point though is, this has limits. Real physical limits. Money however, doesn't. And that's one of the reasons why people experience lower wages right now, as there is a lot of money that's doing nothing but sitting around, money that is not invested in infrastructures, workers and so on. At the end of the day though, someone has to pay those interests.
This exponential growth that we experience right now, is taking all the freedom away from people. So taxing the shit out of the rich, shouldn't be just done due to some moral or ethical reasons, but actually also for some real and very pratical reasons.
Yeah, but who's getting robbed here? If the companies are paying those taxes as a part of their profit, that part is simply going back in to the economy as it's used to finance the infrastructure those companies use, to actually make their profits. It's simply an investment in the nation, to speak so. So that said companies can actually continue to look for employees that have gone trough the kind of education they require, so they can continue to use the legal framework provided by the government that actually allows companies to form and exist in the first place, to use the streets, the whole infrastructure. Or funding scientific and an education systems that actually lays the groundwork for any kind of progress. Otherwise companies and individuals would have to invest a lot more money and taking on a lot of unknown risks that are right now shared more less over the public. Like basic research in universities which has no value right now but might open up possibilities in 50 or 100 years, research done in places like CERN might pave the way for the use of completely new technologies. Or all research in nuclear fusion is really done by non-profit organisations that are funded by governments as it it's so damn expensive and there is no guarantee if it can be monetized in the future. But we still have to do the research to see if it can be a viable energy source for the future. Or take the Manhattan project that lead to nuclear reactors. The whole space programm. All of those have been more or less paid by taxes and started by the government and they made sure the US economy was always leading over others. There is a reason why a company like google isn't created in places like Somalia where you have pretty much no rule and thus no taxes.
Taxes are not robbery, taxes are transfer payments that every citizens, including corporations pay for the services and goods they take from the public. And the benefit is, that you're living in a functional society.
It's not a meme, though. It's real. But trying to pass GoFundMe and other funding platforms as a viable method of sustenance for the most disfavoured is plain hilarious to me. Considering those people wouldn't even have access to the internet, flawless plan.
Do you have something against roads, policemen, armies, or people actually cleaning the streets? It's not fucking "altruism", because it helps and serves you too. Paying a relatively inconsequential cut of what you earn is the tariff to having any right to decide and talk about what may happen with your own country. Else, you're even more of a parasyte than even the most hyperbolic case of welfare. Otherwise, he government needs to act like
There's literally no loss to people around you being healthier and happier, unless you're The Grinch, or worse, a fucking ancap.
Actually no, the very concept of 'Fuck you, I got mine', means if I make the good choice while someone else makes a bad choice, I win every time. It also means whoever made a bad choice is a fucking idiot and that behavior should not be rewarded.
Ah yes, the bad choice of not having a chance to make a bad choice. Pretty easy to say, considering you, or, let's be honest, nobody here found themselves there.
Again, same thing with Arnust. Uplifting the poor. You can scream buzzwords all day but what we need are solutions (and ones that do not require heavy handed government intrusion). Some government assistance is inevitable but it all comes down to how government works when it is involved.
The UBI isn't a buzzword. I provided a lot of informations to explain what I am aiming at and why we have to lift people out of povertry by simply giving them money. It's probably the easiest and most cost effective solution in the end. And I am certain that this will happen at some point, particulary when the job marketing is changing in the near future and more and more experiments with the UBI start to pille up.
And NO, it is not like we have food banks and shelters, and poverty will go away. If you have been reading this thread, I have already proposed solutions to problems like crime, substance abuse, mental health issues, etc. Not everyone is a poor victim that can magically get better if they were just given a handout. Assistance go hand in hand with responsibility. People have to be FORCED, to go get treatment. People need to be encouraged to work, not incentivized to stay poor.
You do not create incentive by preasure. You simply force people in to making very often wrong or bad decisions they would otherwhise not take. In Germany our wellfare works with a lot of sanctions and we've been doing this for more or less 15 years now. The data clearly shows that it did almost nothing in pushing people out of poverty or in helping them to get better jobs and better education. It just lead to more depressions, actually creating poverty and making it more difficult to geting out of low-wage jobs.
The big problem here is, that people always have this idea of the well-fare queens in mind or the guy on food-stamps who's saying that he doesn't want to work, poverty is often seen like as a restult of lazyness. But they are not the majority.
I can only repeat my self at this point as someone who's working in the field of education. Sanctions and preasure, do not create the results we are aiming at - that is, if we really want to help people. They just create a selection process, where a lot of people fall trough, because we're still living with very old ideologies in our head - which I actually believed in as well. But if our intention is to actually help people, than we have to make it unconditional. We have to allow people to find their own ways in how to help themselfs and this sometimes means that yes, we have to deal with people that simply don't want to work. Someone mentioned Portugal and how they solved their issue with drugs, which is another good example. At the end of the day you simply reach a lot more people if you leave out the punishment and preasure.
Pressure does not equal punishment. This is the fundamental difference that your not understanding. Unconditional only creates more problems. Do I need to bring up the refugee situation again? Your 'unconditional', help is what caused refugees to gladly skip staying in other countries, and go to Germany. That resulted in parties like the AfD actually getting into power.
Unconditional on illegal immigration because it is a 'humanitarian', issue is what brought Trump into power. People got sick and tired of constantly being told to 'take it easy', on illegal immigrants and to 'give them a pass'. The world simply doesn't work like that. You give unconditional, people WILL take advantage. It is human nature.
Pressure is just that, pressure. If people want help, then they need to FOLLOW THE FUCKING RULES. They do not get to get treatment when it suits them, then go out and fuck up again whenever they want, all on Joe Publics dime. If they do NOT want to follow the rules, then they get what is coming to them.
How is it fair that a majority of the worlds population works and deals with bullshit, everyday, and are afforded no excuses. Yet, if your some kind of useless fuck up, all of a sudden, everyone wants to come and help you.
How do you explain to someone who worked hard for their home, that the government should use his tax dollars to give a fuckup, a free one?
@Crni Vuk my concern is less that billionaires will go bankrupt and more that the taxation will make people lose incentive to invest, or work, or what have you in the same way that bailouts for the poor make it so that they lose incentive to work, because they can live on the government’s dollar through food stamps and other means tested welfare programs.
I’m not saying that helping the poor is bad, more that the system we have in place and the system you want to implement is slightly flawed insofar as it levels the playing field to the point where everyone struggles but govt spending goes up, inflating the dollar.
What I mean by that is if we keep bailing people out, the money that goes into circulation through the government using higher taxes in that way will cause inflation; and the only people who won’t be struggling are the rich. It might work at first, I’ll admit, but as a long term solution we need job plans more than bailout plans.
