tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post8932466684362075518..comments2023-05-26T10:55:27.696-04:00Comments on Jc_Freak: No Taxation Without RuminationJc_Freak:http://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-44431175339428037242008-11-05T12:00:00.000-05:002008-11-05T12:00:00.000-05:00Exactly. THat is why FBO generally do a better job...Exactly. THat is why FBO generally do a better job at helping the poor than the government does. As institutions, they are more volunteer based, and are also independent. <BR/><BR/>THat doesn't mean that it is wrong for the gov't to do anything. I'm not actually against social security. But it is better to invest in FBOs than social security since they tend to do more good in the long run.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-60206017063178559812008-11-05T08:51:00.000-05:002008-11-05T08:51:00.000-05:00That is part of it. The idea is not new, but is d...That is part of it. The idea is not new, but is difficult to coalesce into a single noun. The terms entitlement and victimization have been used to attempt to grasp the concept; the notion that some people have that society “owes” them a better standard of living than they are able to earn for themselves. But even that is an effect, I think, of the division concept I am using. You can see it in the very sentence that I used; that society owes them something – society, not individual people, not people who are themselves going to work, buying food for their families, and paying a portion of their earnings towards government funded programs. The knife cuts both ways. Taxpayers can come to view the “needy” as a steady drain on their resources rather than fellow children of God who are suffering. Again, balance is the key. When you know someone you can distinguish between, say, the dreamer who took too big a chance and missed, and the indolent vagrant. Institutions have difficulty with this distinction. On the other hand, it takes institutional qualities to be reliable and identifiable.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00251084094812874986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-14082524615294395972008-11-04T10:29:00.000-05:002008-11-04T10:29:00.000-05:00Thanks, Dad, youg gave me a lot to think of there....Thanks, Dad, youg gave me a lot to think of there.<BR/><BR/>I've heard people talk about division before, but never by that word. I want to see if I understand the concept right. But having the process of charity become institutionalized, the recipients of that charity cease seeing it as a gift and start saying as part of the context of their lives. This makes them less likely to view it as a way out of their situation, and this causes them to use the funds differently. Am I following?Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-17770507251825219272008-11-04T09:53:00.000-05:002008-11-04T09:53:00.000-05:00Very good.Your comment about the sudden increase i...Very good.<BR/><BR/>Your comment about the sudden increase in taxes due to upward movement in tax tiers is overstated. Do an example in Excel. The overall tax rate is continuous (it is piecewise linear), although the first derivative is not. The overall tax rate increases monotonically in every bracket. The effect you describe is still felt, just not to the degree you suggest. I've always thought that the marginal tax rate should be continuous, but most people feel that doing so would make the math too difficult for the average person to calculate their taxes, so we have this system.<BR/><BR/>It sounds like I would support a more progressive tax system than you would. The fundamental argument is "what would you do with the next dollar you get". The lower class (economically speaking) would spend it on support (food, clothing, medicine), the middle class would spend it on culture (nicer clothes, a show, a vacation), the upper class would spend it on luxury (a yacht, jewels, servants). Yes, it's their money, and I respect property rights, but they CAN afford it.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, the system is called captialism for a reason. It is accumulations of capital that make the system work. Money has to move to accompish anything. If everyone has exactly the same resourses, nothing happens. Do not kill the goose that laid the golden egg.<BR/><BR/>One of the problems with progressive taxes that you did not mention is investment flight. Severely progressive taxes worked in the 50's and early 60's because investors still made more money here than anywhere else. That is no longer true, and has not been for some time. Another is simple incentive. Most income producing activities come with risk; at the very least, of your time. People take that risk for the reward of improving their lives and of the lives of the ones that they love. Remove the incentive and people will no longer take the risks, and the inventiveness of society will diminish.<BR/><BR/>It has been said that it is not unreasonable to judge a society by how it treats its weakest members. There is a place for subsistence level charity enforced by statute.<BR/><BR/>There are three big problems with charity by statute, however. The first is dependence, the second is fraud (and its cousin, inefficiency), and the third is division. The first two are obvious, the third may require some explanation. When you receive charity from a person, or from a local organization whose members are observable, you also receive a service. This service comes from identifiable people and, as a result, a binding, a sense of interest, appreciation, and caring (and gratitude) is engendered. There is a recognition of responsibility towards those less fortunate (there, but for the grace of God, go I). There is also (usually) a responding responsiblity to make do with the gifts you receive and to attempt to make your own way. With charity by statue the givers and receivers become "others" - "they"; impersonal sources or sinks of goods and services to be handled and dealt with in a way to best suit your individual circumstances.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is that both political extremes are wrong. It's not that the middle way is always right, but that there must be a balance. That balance will not be static, it will shift with times and circumstances. The more extreme a measure that is employed, the shorter the time should be for it's use. Also, enter into entrenched positions with great trepidation. The more power you have to enforce your position (i.e. the federal government) the slower you should be to create immovable objects.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry that there is no cohesive organization to the above; I just don't have time for more right now. I look forward to reading some of your other thoughts.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00251084094812874986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-29774944333012427102008-11-02T03:41:00.000-05:002008-11-02T03:41:00.000-05:00And another thing I should probably mention, and t...And another thing I should probably mention, and this is more about Obama: how can you lament over the condition of our economy and still propose providing universal health care? That just doesn't make sense to me. Having universal health care as an eventual goal after you repare the economy... eh, you still gotta show me it'll work, but having that as one of your first objectives sounds foolish to me.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.com