Personal responsibility and freedom are neo-con gags and smoke screens

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

The definition is whatever the majority of Americans want it to be.

Zephyr

That's idiocy, that's effectively saying to people, "You deserve whatever you want". Tell us, for the purpsoe of your political aims what is a basic standard of living?

This is a democracy? Is it not? Hence government should reflect the will of the people via their elected leaders, within the confines of the Constitution, which can be amended by the will of the people via their elected leaders.

Zephyr

Let them vote for whatever they want. What people actually pay will equal the total tax bill minus their ability to evade. Watch that tax gap grow and grow and grow. 🙂

Legislation does not guarantee compliance. 🙂

So what are you trying to insinuate here? You're a oppressed white minority paying too many taxes for other's entitlements? Guess what cvnt, I'm no fan of entitlements either, so you can stop your condescending.

Zephyr

No, I am insinuating that tax evasion is justified under certain conditions. In fact I am writing an essay right now that makes the case that under the current system of government tax evasion is in fact justified. The area of taxation is prone to much logical fallacies relating to emotion, however, my case is made point by point on sound logic within economical, philosophical and political contexts. It is also made on the foundations of a discipline known as praxeology, which is the study of human action.

I myself do not evade taxes, however, if someone chooses to do so their actions are certainly justified under the current conditions.

Sorry if my reply was over the top....
I don't know what to say about this essay of yours. Didn't you post something like this here before?

Zephyr

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

The definition is whatever the majority of Americans want it to be.

Zephyr

That's idiocy, that's effectively saying to people, "You deserve whatever you want". Tell us, for the purpsoe of your political aims what is a basic standard of living?

This is a democracy? Is it not? Hence government should reflect the will of the people via their elected leaders, within the confines of the Constitution, which can be amended by the will of the people via their elected leaders.

Zephyr

Let them vote for whatever they want. What people actually pay will equal the total tax bill minus their ability to evade. Watch that tax gap grow and grow and grow. 🙂

Legislation does not guarantee compliance. 🙂

So what are you trying to insinuate here? You're a oppressed white minority paying too many taxes for other's entitlements? Guess what cvnt, I'm no fan of entitlements either, so you can stop your condescending.

Zephyr

No, I am insinuating that tax evasion is justified under certain conditions. In fact I am writing an essay right now that makes the case that under the current system of government tax evasion is in fact justified. The area of taxation is prone to much logical fallacies relating to emotion, however, my case is made point by point on sound logic within economical, philosophical and political contexts. It is also made on the foundations of a discipline known as praxeology, which is the study of human action.

I myself do not evade taxes, however, if someone chooses to do so their actions are certainly justified under the current conditions.

Sorry if my reply was over the top....
I don't know what to say about this essay of yours. Didn't you post something like this here before?

Zephyr

Yes, it is called The Case for a Head Tax. You can find it in search. However, that essay was really just a rough draft, but I have put off its completion for now because I recently had an epiphany relating to the nature of government which helps greatly in the tax evasion essay.

 

[FrodoB]

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

What a bunch of garbage and nonsense.

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

look no matter what level of education people have somebody will end up working two mcjobs and trying to support a family in a terrible standard of living. i dont care about the lasy people, but in america hard working poor people dont get many breaks.

Not going to answer the question?

access to healthcare that isnt based on income levels, especially when it comes to new, much better more expensive life saving drugs, look at it from a republican perspective most poor people die after a few years of reitrement, so we may as well keep em working till then, even if we have to pay up now.

in terms of a living wage, a 40hr week for women and 40-45 for men should pay enough for a single parent family to live with the basic amenities and a cheap holiday a year.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

access to healthcare that isnt based on income levels, especially when it comes to new, much better more expensive life saving drugs, look at it from a republican perspective most poor people die after a few years of reitrement, so we may as well keep em working till then, even if we have to pay up now.

in terms of a living wage, a 40hr week for women and 40-45 for men should pay enough for a single parent family to live with the basic amenities and a cheap holiday a year.

.. look, just define what you mean by basic amenities! Good god, it's not that hard.

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: zillafurby

access to healthcare that isnt based on income levels, especially when it comes to new, much better more expensive life saving drugs, look at it from a republican perspective most poor people die after a few years of reitrement, so we may as well keep em working till then, even if we have to pay up now.

in terms of a living wage, a 40hr week for women and 40-45 for men should pay enough for a single parent family to live with the basic amenities and a cheap holiday a year.

.. look, just define what you mean by basic amenities! Good god, it's not that hard.

assume a single parent, with 2-3 kids, enough money to clothe, feed, pay the bills, provide a normal upbringing for the kids, like some pocket money, live in a local government house, or whatever you have, access to free healthcare, and enough disposable income for a tv, a few treats etc, not much, but given it only applies to the bottom 10-20% of society not that costly either. a minimum income of atleast $10-$15 per hour i guess depending on the area of the country. total affect on business cost bases would be minimal, and gov would save money by getting better focussed school kids and more stable family backgrounds for the poor.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: zillafurby

access to healthcare that isnt based on income levels, especially when it comes to new, much better more expensive life saving drugs, look at it from a republican perspective most poor people die after a few years of reitrement, so we may as well keep em working till then, even if we have to pay up now.

in terms of a living wage, a 40hr week for women and 40-45 for men should pay enough for a single parent family to live with the basic amenities and a cheap holiday a year.

.. look, just define what you mean by basic amenities! Good god, it's not that hard.

assume a single parent, with 2-3 kids, enough money to clothe, feed, pay the bills, provide a normal upbringing for the kids, like some pocket money, live in a local government house, or whatever you have, access to free healthcare, and enough disposable income for a tv, a few treats etc, not much, but given it only applies to the bottom 10-20% of society not that costly either. a minimum income of atleast $10-$15 per hour i guess depending on the area of the country. total affect on business cost bases would be minimal, and gov would save money by getting better focussed school kids and more stable family backgrounds for the poor.

Wow, tons of commas, only two periods and no capitalization. This guy must be going for some kind of award. Not that I'm the king of punctuation, but wow. Can anyone make any sense of this broken English? I'm trying real hard.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: zillafurby

access to healthcare that isnt based on income levels, especially when it comes to new, much better more expensive life saving drugs, look at it from a republican perspective most poor people die after a few years of reitrement, so we may as well keep em working till then, even if we have to pay up now.

in terms of a living wage, a 40hr week for women and 40-45 for men should pay enough for a single parent family to live with the basic amenities and a cheap holiday a year.

.. look, just define what you mean by basic amenities! Good god, it's not that hard.

assume a single parent, with 2-3 kids, enough money to clothe, feed, pay the bills, provide a normal upbringing for the kids, like some pocket money, live in a local government house, or whatever you have, access to free healthcare, and enough disposable income for a tv, a few treats etc, not much, but given it only applies to the bottom 10-20% of society not that costly either. a minimum income of atleast $10-$15 per hour i guess depending on the area of the country. total affect on business cost bases would be minimal, and gov would save money by getting better focussed school kids and more stable family backgrounds for the poor.

OK - lets just cue in on the wage you posted. Why $10-15/hr? Why not more?

CkG

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

look no matter what level of education people have somebody will end up working two mcjobs and trying to support a family in a terrible standard of living. i dont care about the lasy people, but in america hard working poor people dont get many breaks.

Nobody forces anyone to take a McJob. Nobody also forces someone to inpregant someone else and create an army of children that they can't take care of. Maybe if these people stopped having kids and focused on getting educated first, they wouldn't be so poor.

but hey, this is America. You shouldn't have to be responsible for your own decisions.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

assume a single parent, with 2-3 kids, enough money to clothe, feed, pay the bills, provide a normal upbringing for the kids, like some pocket money, live in a local government house, or whatever you have,

bah.

It's not society's fault that someone had three children out of wedlock that they can't afford to take care of.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: zillafurby

access to healthcare that isnt based on income levels, especially when it comes to new, much better more expensive life saving drugs, look at it from a republican perspective most poor people die after a few years of reitrement, so we may as well keep em working till then, even if we have to pay up now.

in terms of a living wage, a 40hr week for women and 40-45 for men should pay enough for a single parent family to live with the basic amenities and a cheap holiday a year.

.. look, just define what you mean by basic amenities! Good god, it's not that hard.

assume a single parent, with 2-3 kids, enough money to clothe, feed, pay the bills, provide a normal upbringing for the kids, like some pocket money, live in a local government house, or whatever you have, access to free healthcare, and enough disposable income for a tv, a few treats etc, not much, but given it only applies to the bottom 10-20% of society not that costly either. a minimum income of atleast $10-$15 per hour i guess depending on the area of the country. total affect on business cost bases would be minimal, and gov would save money by getting better focussed school kids and more stable family backgrounds for the poor.

OK - lets just cue in on the wage you posted. Why $10-15/hr? Why not more?

CkG

Why not $250,000 a year?

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: zillafurby

access to healthcare that isnt based on income levels, especially when it comes to new, much better more expensive life saving drugs, look at it from a republican perspective most poor people die after a few years of reitrement, so we may as well keep em working till then, even if we have to pay up now.

in terms of a living wage, a 40hr week for women and 40-45 for men should pay enough for a single parent family to live with the basic amenities and a cheap holiday a year.

.. look, just define what you mean by basic amenities! Good god, it's not that hard.

assume a single parent, with 2-3 kids, enough money to clothe, feed, pay the bills, provide a normal upbringing for the kids, like some pocket money, live in a local government house, or whatever you have, access to free healthcare, and enough disposable income for a tv, a few treats etc, not much, but given it only applies to the bottom 10-20% of society not that costly either. a minimum income of atleast $10-$15 per hour i guess depending on the area of the country. total affect on business cost bases would be minimal, and gov would save money by getting better focussed school kids and more stable family backgrounds for the poor.

OK - lets just cue in on the wage you posted. Why $10-15/hr? Why not more?

CkG

because more would take unnecessarily away from people who are worth more. all i am suggesting is a basic level of opportunity and income parity for the least economically talented but still hard working people. you cant deny that the cleaners, mc donalds and walmart staff, in most cases dont do a long, hard and low pay/ low opportunity job every day of their working lives, then go home and scrape by.

anyone who say they can go to college, or they can go for the promotion, you dont understand the culture of poverty. of course, these people should try, but many cant do academic study, they really are dumb, and many other have never been encouraged in their lives pretty much, including by their bosses. and anyway, if they get ahead it still leaves some other people behind.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: zillafurby

access to healthcare that isnt based on income levels, especially when it comes to new, much better more expensive life saving drugs, look at it from a republican perspective most poor people die after a few years of reitrement, so we may as well keep em working till then, even if we have to pay up now.

in terms of a living wage, a 40hr week for women and 40-45 for men should pay enough for a single parent family to live with the basic amenities and a cheap holiday a year.

.. look, just define what you mean by basic amenities! Good god, it's not that hard.

assume a single parent, with 2-3 kids, enough money to clothe, feed, pay the bills, provide a normal upbringing for the kids, like some pocket money, live in a local government house, or whatever you have, access to free healthcare, and enough disposable income for a tv, a few treats etc, not much, but given it only applies to the bottom 10-20% of society not that costly either. a minimum income of atleast $10-$15 per hour i guess depending on the area of the country. total affect on business cost bases would be minimal, and gov would save money by getting better focussed school kids and more stable family backgrounds for the poor.

OK - lets just cue in on the wage you posted. Why $10-15/hr? Why not more?

CkG

because more would take unnecessarily away from people who are worth more. all i am suggesting is a basic level of opportunity and income parity for the least economically talented but still hard working people. you cant deny that the cleaners, mc donalds and walmart staff, in most cases dont do a long, hard and low pay/ low opportunity job every day of their working lives, then go home and scrape by.

anyone who say they can go to college, or they can go for the promotion, you dont understand the culture of poverty. of course, these people should try, but many cant do academic study, they really are dumb, and many other have never been encouraged in their lives pretty much, including by their bosses. and anyway, if they get ahead it still leaves some other people behind.

What? What does any of that have to do with why you picked $10-15? Does a higher wage for people you say really are stupid give them more opportunity? And if that is the case -why not make it $15-20/hr? Wouldn't that give them an even greater opportunity? You say it shouldn't be higher because it would unnecessarily take away from people who are worth more -but why does $15-20/hr take more away from those you say are worth more than the $10-15/hr? Don't they both take away from those who are in your words "worth more"? Or is $15/hr the magic number for someone's worth?
You see zilla - an hourly wage doesn't "fix" anything - it is just an arbitrary number. Not only would your idea cause instant inflation it'd probably destroy alot of businesses who wouldn't survive the instant change.

So anyway do you have any real reasons for why $10-15/hr wages instead of $20/hr+ ? Or care to explain what you mean by taking away from those who are worth more?

CkG

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: zillafurby

access to healthcare that isnt based on income levels, especially when it comes to new, much better more expensive life saving drugs, look at it from a republican perspective most poor people die after a few years of reitrement, so we may as well keep em working till then, even if we have to pay up now.

in terms of a living wage, a 40hr week for women and 40-45 for men should pay enough for a single parent family to live with the basic amenities and a cheap holiday a year.

.. look, just define what you mean by basic amenities! Good god, it's not that hard.

assume a single parent, with 2-3 kids, enough money to clothe, feed, pay the bills, provide a normal upbringing for the kids, like some pocket money, live in a local government house, or whatever you have, access to free healthcare, and enough disposable income for a tv, a few treats etc, not much, but given it only applies to the bottom 10-20% of society not that costly either. a minimum income of atleast $10-$15 per hour i guess depending on the area of the country. total affect on business cost bases would be minimal, and gov would save money by getting better focussed school kids and more stable family backgrounds for the poor.

OK - lets just cue in on the wage you posted. Why $10-15/hr? Why not more?

CkG

because more would take unnecessarily away from people who are worth more. all i am suggesting is a basic level of opportunity and income parity for the least economically talented but still hard working people. you cant deny that the cleaners, mc donalds and walmart staff, in most cases dont do a long, hard and low pay/ low opportunity job every day of their working lives, then go home and scrape by.

anyone who say they can go to college, or they can go for the promotion, you dont understand the culture of poverty. of course, these people should try, but many cant do academic study, they really are dumb, and many other have never been encouraged in their lives pretty much, including by their bosses. and anyway, if they get ahead it still leaves some other people behind.

What? What does any of that have to do with why you picked $10-15? Does a higher wage for people you say really are stupid give them more opportunity? And if that is the case -why not make it $15-20/hr? Wouldn't that give them an even greater opportunity? You say it shouldn't be higher because it would unnecessarily take away from people who are worth more -but why does $15-20/hr take more away from those you say are worth more than the $10-15/hr? Don't they both take away from those who are in your words "worth more"? Or is $15/hr the magic number for someone's worth?
You see zilla - an hourly wage doesn't "fix" anything - it is just an arbitrary number. Not only would your idea cause instant inflation it'd probably destroy alot of businesses who wouldn't survive the instant change.

So anyway do you have any real reasons for why $10-15/hr wages instead of $20/hr+ ? Or care to explain what you mean by taking away from those who are worth more?

CkG

well its called a minimum wage isnt it, its the minimum 'fair' amount, $20 is probably too much for the reasons you mentioned, and the inflation aspect and job losses at the range i mentioned woul dbe unnoticeable really over a phase in.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: zillafurby

access to healthcare that isnt based on income levels, especially when it comes to new, much better more expensive life saving drugs, look at it from a republican perspective most poor people die after a few years of reitrement, so we may as well keep em working till then, even if we have to pay up now.

in terms of a living wage, a 40hr week for women and 40-45 for men should pay enough for a single parent family to live with the basic amenities and a cheap holiday a year.

.. look, just define what you mean by basic amenities! Good god, it's not that hard.

assume a single parent, with 2-3 kids, enough money to clothe, feed, pay the bills, provide a normal upbringing for the kids, like some pocket money, live in a local government house, or whatever you have, access to free healthcare, and enough disposable income for a tv, a few treats etc, not much, but given it only applies to the bottom 10-20% of society not that costly either. a minimum income of atleast $10-$15 per hour i guess depending on the area of the country. total affect on business cost bases would be minimal, and gov would save money by getting better focussed school kids and more stable family backgrounds for the poor.

OK - lets just cue in on the wage you posted. Why $10-15/hr? Why not more?

CkG

because more would take unnecessarily away from people who are worth more. all i am suggesting is a basic level of opportunity and income parity for the least economically talented but still hard working people. you cant deny that the cleaners, mc donalds and walmart staff, in most cases dont do a long, hard and low pay/ low opportunity job every day of their working lives, then go home and scrape by.

anyone who say they can go to college, or they can go for the promotion, you dont understand the culture of poverty. of course, these people should try, but many cant do academic study, they really are dumb, and many other have never been encouraged in their lives pretty much, including by their bosses. and anyway, if they get ahead it still leaves some other people behind.

What? What does any of that have to do with why you picked $10-15? Does a higher wage for people you say really are stupid give them more opportunity? And if that is the case -why not make it $15-20/hr? Wouldn't that give them an even greater opportunity? You say it shouldn't be higher because it would unnecessarily take away from people who are worth more -but why does $15-20/hr take more away from those you say are worth more than the $10-15/hr? Don't they both take away from those who are in your words "worth more"? Or is $15/hr the magic number for someone's worth?
You see zilla - an hourly wage doesn't "fix" anything - it is just an arbitrary number. Not only would your idea cause instant inflation it'd probably destroy alot of businesses who wouldn't survive the instant change.

So anyway do you have any real reasons for why $10-15/hr wages instead of $20/hr+ ? Or care to explain what you mean by taking away from those who are worth more?

CkG

well its called a minimum wage isnt it, its the minimum 'fair' amount, $20 is probably too much for the reasons you mentioned, and the inflation aspect and job losses at the range i mentioned woul dbe unnoticeable really over a phase in.

So again, why $10-15/hr? If $10-15/hr is "fair" - why not more? At what number does it become "unfair"?

CkG

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: zillafurby

access to healthcare that isnt based on income levels, especially when it comes to new, much better more expensive life saving drugs, look at it from a republican perspective most poor people die after a few years of reitrement, so we may as well keep em working till then, even if we have to pay up now.

in terms of a living wage, a 40hr week for women and 40-45 for men should pay enough for a single parent family to live with the basic amenities and a cheap holiday a year.

.. look, just define what you mean by basic amenities! Good god, it's not that hard.

assume a single parent, with 2-3 kids, enough money to clothe, feed, pay the bills, provide a normal upbringing for the kids, like some pocket money, live in a local government house, or whatever you have, access to free healthcare, and enough disposable income for a tv, a few treats etc, not much, but given it only applies to the bottom 10-20% of society not that costly either. a minimum income of atleast $10-$15 per hour i guess depending on the area of the country. total affect on business cost bases would be minimal, and gov would save money by getting better focussed school kids and more stable family backgrounds for the poor.

OK - lets just cue in on the wage you posted. Why $10-15/hr? Why not more?

CkG

because more would take unnecessarily away from people who are worth more. all i am suggesting is a basic level of opportunity and income parity for the least economically talented but still hard working people. you cant deny that the cleaners, mc donalds and walmart staff, in most cases dont do a long, hard and low pay/ low opportunity job every day of their working lives, then go home and scrape by.

anyone who say they can go to college, or they can go for the promotion, you dont understand the culture of poverty. of course, these people should try, but many cant do academic study, they really are dumb, and many other have never been encouraged in their lives pretty much, including by their bosses. and anyway, if they get ahead it still leaves some other people behind.

What? What does any of that have to do with why you picked $10-15? Does a higher wage for people you say really are stupid give them more opportunity? And if that is the case -why not make it $15-20/hr? Wouldn't that give them an even greater opportunity? You say it shouldn't be higher because it would unnecessarily take away from people who are worth more -but why does $15-20/hr take more away from those you say are worth more than the $10-15/hr? Don't they both take away from those who are in your words "worth more"? Or is $15/hr the magic number for someone's worth?
You see zilla - an hourly wage doesn't "fix" anything - it is just an arbitrary number. Not only would your idea cause instant inflation it'd probably destroy alot of businesses who wouldn't survive the instant change.

So anyway do you have any real reasons for why $10-15/hr wages instead of $20/hr+ ? Or care to explain what you mean by taking away from those who are worth more?

CkG

well its called a minimum wage isnt it, its the minimum 'fair' amount, $20 is probably too much for the reasons you mentioned, and the inflation aspect and job losses at the range i mentioned woul dbe unnoticeable really over a phase in.

So again, why $10-15/hr? If $10-15/hr is "fair" - why not more? At what number does it become "unfair"?

CkG

i told what a basic standard of living would be in my view, adn that $10-$15 an hour would pay of it in most instances. If i thought more was appropriate id suggest more, but I dont. I think a basic standard of living is all that should be guaranteed to people prepared to do their best.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: zillafurby
i told what a basic standard of living would be in my view, adn that $10-$15 an hour would pay of it in most instances. If i thought more was appropriate id suggest more, but I dont. I think a basic standard of living is all that should be guaranteed to people prepared to do their best.

So it's arbitrary.

OK, next point- How does one determine who gets to live in a gov't house and how much they pay to live there? Or is that fully paid for by tax dollars too?

CkG

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby
i told what a basic standard of living would be in my view, adn that $10-$15 an hour would pay of it in most instances. If i thought more was appropriate id suggest more, but I dont. I think a basic standard of living is all that should be guaranteed to people prepared to do their best.

So it's arbitrary.

OK, next point- How does one determine who gets to live in a gov't house and how much they pay to live there? Or is that fully paid for by tax dollars too?

CkG

its not arbitrary its about some justice. government housing, well either the government provides it, or its done privately in which case people need to earn more inorder to pay the mortgage. i guess pople who's income cant support private accommodation should be provided a basic house for a basic rent.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby
i told what a basic standard of living would be in my view, adn that $10-$15 an hour would pay of it in most instances. If i thought more was appropriate id suggest more, but I dont. I think a basic standard of living is all that should be guaranteed to people prepared to do their best.

So it's arbitrary.

OK, next point- How does one determine who gets to live in a gov't house and how much they pay to live there? Or is that fully paid for by tax dollars too?

CkG

its not arbitrary its about some justice. government housing, well either the government provides it, or its done privately in which case people need to earn more inorder to pay the mortgage. i guess pople who's income cant support private accommodation should be provided a basic house for a basic rent.

Right...so it's arbitrary.

So furby - who decideds who lives in gov't housing? What income are we talking about? Didn't your $10-15/hr wage already address the money for mortgage situation? Or has it now become $10-15/hr PLUS gov't housing? Or is gov't housing only for those that don't have a job?
Basically - what should be the requirements a person has to meet to live in a gov't house?

CkG

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby
i told what a basic standard of living would be in my view, adn that $10-$15 an hour would pay of it in most instances. If i thought more was appropriate id suggest more, but I dont. I think a basic standard of living is all that should be guaranteed to people prepared to do their best.

So it's arbitrary.

OK, next point- How does one determine who gets to live in a gov't house and how much they pay to live there? Or is that fully paid for by tax dollars too?

CkG

its not arbitrary its about some justice. government housing, well either the government provides it, or its done privately in which case people need to earn more inorder to pay the mortgage. i guess pople who's income cant support private accommodation should be provided a basic house for a basic rent.

Right...so it's arbitrary.

So furby - who decideds who lives in gov't housing? What income are we talking about? Didn't your $10-15/hr wage already address the money for mortgage situation? Or has it now become $10-15/hr PLUS gov't housing? Or is gov't housing only for those that don't have a job?
Basically - what should be the requirements a person has to meet to live in a gov't house?

CkG

i know americans dont like reading or listening to other popelsz arguments but if you look at what i put above;

assume a single parent, with 2-3 kids, enough money to clothe, feed, pay the bills, provide a normal upbringing for the kids, like some pocket money, live in a local government house, or whatever you have, access to free healthcare, and enough disposable income for a tv, a few treats etc, not much, but given it only applies to the bottom 10-20% of society not that costly either. a minimum income of atleast $10-$15 per hour i guess depending on the area of the country. total affect on business cost bases would be minimal, and gov would save money by getting better focussed school kids and more stable family backgrounds for the poor.

if they wont work and are lazy, they can build a hut as far as i care, if they work or are properly incapable of it they shoudl have a basic living.

i dont care whether you call it arbitrary or not. you have probably never met people like this.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby
i told what a basic standard of living would be in my view, adn that $10-$15 an hour would pay of it in most instances. If i thought more was appropriate id suggest more, but I dont. I think a basic standard of living is all that should be guaranteed to people prepared to do their best.

So it's arbitrary.

OK, next point- How does one determine who gets to live in a gov't house and how much they pay to live there? Or is that fully paid for by tax dollars too?

CkG

its not arbitrary its about some justice. government housing, well either the government provides it, or its done privately in which case people need to earn more inorder to pay the mortgage. i guess pople who's income cant support private accommodation should be provided a basic house for a basic rent.

Right...so it's arbitrary.

So furby - who decideds who lives in gov't housing? What income are we talking about? Didn't your $10-15/hr wage already address the money for mortgage situation? Or has it now become $10-15/hr PLUS gov't housing? Or is gov't housing only for those that don't have a job?
Basically - what should be the requirements a person has to meet to live in a gov't house?

CkG

i know americans dont like reading or listening to other popelsz arguments but if you look at what i put above;

assume a single parent, with 2-3 kids, enough money to clothe, feed, pay the bills, provide a normal upbringing for the kids, like some pocket money, live in a local government house, or whatever you have, access to free healthcare, and enough disposable income for a tv, a few treats etc, not much, but given it only applies to the bottom 10-20% of society not that costly either. a minimum income of atleast $10-$15 per hour i guess depending on the area of the country. total affect on business cost bases would be minimal, and gov would save money by getting better focussed school kids and more stable family backgrounds for the poor.

if they wont work and are lazy, they can build a hut as far as i care, if they work or are properly incapable of it they shoudl have a basic living.

i dont care whether you call it arbitrary or not. you have probably never met people like this.

Like I want to waste my time asking you questions if I wasn't reading what you said and trying to understand your argument. I just need more details because while your idea sounds nice and all(to some) it lacks the details of who and how much and etc.
The idea of people making more money is nice but why do they also then need gov't housing? Does the gov't provide them food and clothes too - even though they make $10-15/hr?
I'm not "against" the poor or helping those that CAN'T help themselves - I just don't believe the gov't should provide everything for everyone.

Now again - who will be living in the gov't housing? Is that determined by income? What income level would that be? How big/nice of place should the gov't provide? What incentive do the people who would live there have to leave gov't housing?

Lots of questions.... all I ask is for you to better define your opinion.

Oh, and I know alot of "poor" people. I have lived "poor" and decided to get out of a dead end situation and place. So while it was a nice try - your insinuation that I have never seen/met poor people - is 100% wrong - I lived among them.

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

*butts in with obligatory comment that raising someone's nominal wage does not change the real value of their labor and they will soon be forced back into the same buying power that they already have*

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
*butts in with obligatory comment that raising someone's nominal wage does not change the real value of their labor and they will soon be forced back into the same buying power that they already have*

Very true.

CkG

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
*butts in with obligatory comment that raising someone's nominal wage does not change the real value of their labor and they will soon be forced back into the same buying power that they already have*

*cough* How dare you bring logic into this thread!

<bitter econ major rant mode>

 

[rickn]

communism don't work