Originally posted by Joel
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Social wellfare for the sick and disabled.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View Post. . . but it's hardly as if that's the only area tax income is used.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Raphael View PostI know plenty of people who have the funds who don't use them to even try make a dent. If you lowered taxes it still wouldn't translate into people making a dent. (and I do know others who regardless of how much money they have are doing their best with whatever resources they have to make a dent)
Originally posted by JoelNor does an obligation to pay taxes imply that the government ought to take 1/3 of our incomes.
And the idea that a particular existing entity is anyone's "lawful 'rulers'" is an additional premise you are bringing in; it is not derivable from the scripture you quoted.
Originally posted by JoelSecondly, how do you tell which things are Caesar's?
As a side comment, historically a "note" is a liability/IOU owed by the issuing institution. It's shorthand for "promissory note". The bank's signature (whether private or government bank) is the signing of the contract that the bank promises to pay the obligation to you, the bearer of the note. Quite contrary to the signature being a claim of ownership/asset, it is (if it is anything) a declaration of the government's liability/obligation to you. That government banks have ceased to fulfill these obligations just goes to show how morally bankrupt they are. It is a sign of a bandit gang rather than a lawful "ruler".
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostNo, actually an obligation to pay taxes levied does not imply that the entity levying the taxes has the moral right to levy them. Just as a moral obligation to 'turn the other cheek' does not imply that your attacker is not committing an injustice. Likewise a slave having a moral obligation to obey a master does not mean being a slave master is not unjust. So, no, an obligation to pay taxes does not imply that they should levy taxes or even that they morally may levy taxes.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostExactly! That is only one example of government inefficiency. I believe the same economic profile fits ever, or virtually every, program managed by the government.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostI would love to see your math, but it's hardly as if that's the only area tax income is used.
A google search tells me there are 45 million people below the poverty line in the U.S.
So that's $94,337 per person, per year.
It's not the only area of spending, but it's the most relevant one and it is nearly 2/3 of government spending in the U.S.
If you add in military spending and interest on the debt (can we agree those are also way bigger than they should be?) the total comes to about 80% of spending. The supposedly core things like police, fire, and courts are only about 4% of spending. And even most of that is probably spent on the war on drugs boondoggle. So it still seems to be not the case that the government takes 1/3 of our incomes for a "good reason".
Getting back to the main topic of the thread. The thing that has done most in history to raise people out of poverty is freed markets, leading to economic prosperity. Even for people disabled, the increased prosperity enabled advances in technology that has enabled many people to be productive who would have been incapacitated in the past. And now with advances in bionics, bionic suits for quadriplegics seems to be on the horizon. And hopefully the set of incapacitating illnesses (physical and mental) continues to decrease. Enabling people is even more awesome than sustaining them.
Comment
-
I can't quite consent to the 4.245 trillion without the detailed make-up, but consider just social security for a start. Social security tax @ 15.3 % on typical worker income of $50,000 comes to $6,500 per person. Most of those are not below poverty, so these funds don't benefit the poor in the main, but by Joel's math would count as about $30,000-50,000 right there, there being lots more workers than there are in poverty. But we don't think of social security as a social program that is designed to benefit the poor. Similarly there are other social programs Joel is counting that don't benefit the poor in the main--veteran's, Obamacare, unemployment insurance, lots of other examples with big money.
On the other side of it, there may be social programs Joel fails to count, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit I have mentioned in TWeb. That's not unlikely to be as high as $9,400 (Including the Additional Child Tax Credit) for a family of taxpayer plus 3 kids, a $2350 windfall per person to people who would be in real poverty if not receiving this money. For a single taxpayer with 1 qualified child it would be $2200 per person.Last edited by Adam; 03-23-2016, 03:23 PM.Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostGovernment spending (federal+state+local) on social programs in FY 2015 is $4,245.2 billions.
A google search tells me there are 45 million people below the poverty line in the U.S.
So that's $94,337 per person, per year.
Originally posted by Joel View PostIt's not the only area of spending, but it's the most relevant one and it is nearly 2/3 of government spending in the U.S.
If you add in military spending and interest on the debt (can we agree those are also way bigger than they should be?) the total comes to about 80% of spending. The supposedly core things like police, fire, and courts are only about 4% of spending. And even most of that is probably spent on the war on drugs boondoggle. So it still seems to be not the case that the government takes 1/3 of our incomes for a "good reason".
Originally posted by Joel View PostGetting back to the main topic of the thread. The thing that has done most in history to raise people out of poverty is freed markets, leading to economic prosperity. Even for people disabled, the increased prosperity enabled advances in technology that has enabled many people to be productive who would have been incapacitated in the past. And now with advances in bionics, bionic suits for quadriplegics seems to be on the horizon. And hopefully the set of incapacitating illnesses (physical and mental) continues to decrease. Enabling people is even more awesome than sustaining them.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adam View PostI can't quite consent to the 4.245 trillion without the detailed make-up, but consider just social security for a start. Social security tax @ 15.3 % on typical worker income of $50,000 comes to $6,500 per person. Most of those are not below poverty, so these funds don't benefit the poor in the main, but by Joel's math would count as about $30,000-50,000 right there, there being lots more workers than there are in poverty. But we don't think of social security as a social program that is designed to benefit the poor. Similarly there are other social programs Joel is counting that don't benefit the poor in the main--veteran's, Obamacare, unemployment insurance, lots of other examples with big money.
On the other side of it, there may be social programs Joel fails to count, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit I have mentioned in TWeb. That's not unlikely to be as high as $9,400 (Including the Additional Child Tax Credit) for a family of taxpayer plus 3 kids, a $2350 windfall per person to people who would be in real poverty if not receiving this money. For a single taxpayer with 1 qualified child it would be $2200 per person.
I was not including veteran's benefits.
My breakdown is:
$1293.7 billions on social insurance
$1486.6 on health care
$1008.5 on education
$456.4 on other welfare (e.g. SNAP, tax credits, unemployment, housing assistance)
------------------------
Total: $4245.2 billions
(Correction: earlier I said FY 2015, but my numbers are actually FY 2016.)
I anticipate that education is the part most likely to be objected to. But again, if we we ask why we can't end government funding of education, the response is invariably that it's because some people would be too poor to afford education. (or to reduce kids being poor when they grow to uneducated adults) Its reason for existing is as a welfare program.
But if we left education out of the sum, it would divide out to $71,926 per person (below poverty line) per year--still more than sufficient to eliminate poverty.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostDo you mean millions, perhaps? 4,245.2 billions is more than the total (federal) outlays for FY2015.
There's a reason I asked for more explanation of the math, and you're not there yet. Afaict, you're having to define 'social programs' to encompass the entirety of certain departments to get anywhere close to your 2/3 claim. You need to do a lot better than back of the envelope numbers here.
I always like how 'in history' is necessarily limited to the last ~150 years (or less).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostDo you mean millions, perhaps? 4,245.2 billions is more than the total (federal) outlays for FY2015.
It is less than we (NZ) spent on Welfare and Social Security in 2015 (we spend NZ$28.2 billion in the 2014/2015 financial year and our total population is around 4.6 million people, we spent another NZ$14.7 billion on health and NZ $13.5 billion on education - source)Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
1 Corinthians 16:13
"...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
-Ben Witherington III
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostNo, I meant over recorded history. For thousands of years, most of mankind lived in severe poverty. The movement towards laissez-faire (from feudalism and mercantilism) finally changed that.Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostI'm proposing that after 50+ years of muddling around with a perpetually broken system that we should seriously consider what we are trying to do with the public's money; how to best do it; what the actual goals are and how to get people from a situation they can't manage to one where they can not only manage but begin to prosper. Tossing money at it hasn't ever worked if the goal is to let people get back on their feet. It's a hideously broken system and no, a few internet one-liners aren't gonna do the job. If we are serious about making it BETTER then both sides have to let go of their sacred cows and actually concede that neither is satan and both have valid points - then sort out the good from the bad and come up with a system that actually works.
If you ask me, the Body of Christ is better situated for this task - but as long as humans are involved it's going to be difficult for whatever entity we charge with the task.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI respect your answer, though its so vague that I could agree with it and still propose that a welfare system is the only way to do things.
A welfare system isn't off the table - the current versions don't seem to be actually doing what they are supposed to. They are mostly political cash cows - or vote cows, more precisely. It's to the point that the only truly destitute in the Western world are those incapable mentally of using the system. We aren't fighting 'poverty' - we're fighting 'not having as much as the Jones'"
It's time to re-think the whole thing so that we know what the heck we're actually trying to do - and do it."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Slave4Christ, Today, 07:59 PM
|
0 responses
13 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Slave4Christ
Today, 07:59 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 03:49 PM
|
18 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 02:31 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 06-28-2024, 11:42 AM
|
39 responses
203 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Today, 02:57 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-28-2024, 10:24 AM
|
23 responses
161 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 07:16 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, 06-28-2024, 10:22 AM
|
33 responses
193 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Slave4Christ
Today, 07:07 PM
|
Comment