More Welfare = Longer Agony
More Welfare = Longer Agony
Socialism = Slavery ....., you got a better argument saying capitalism = slavery.
Then, as throngs of his enemies bore down upon him and one of his followers said, "They are making at thee, O King," "Who else, pray," said Antigonus, "should be their mark? But Demetrius will come to my aid." This was his hope to the last, and to the last he kept watching eagerly for his son; then a whole cloud of javelins were let fly at him and he fell.
-Plutarch, life of Demetrius.
Arche Aiakidae-Epeiros EB2 AAR
I assume the OP is talking about Democratic Socialism in which case any argument regarding political freedoms becomes null and void. The reasons why I think Socialism is stupid? Well here's one of them; it hinders accumulation of wealth. Taxation becomes ridiculous, I find the idea of free secondary education so incredibly stupid.
That's because it is complete BS.
What's even funnier is that the problem to many conservatives is that welfare is too generous, rather than that the minimum wage is too low.
If welfare pays more than the minimum wage, then that says something about the minimum wage, not welfare. If welfare is meant to keep people out of desperate poverty, then all that shows is that people can't live off the minimum wage alone and not live in poverty.
The vast majority of people with minimum wage jobs have to have support, family, friends, etc., not to mention quite a few government services, to even stay above the poverty line.
The government directly and indirectly subsidizes businesses that employ minimum wage work by keeping their employees fed, housed, and healthy on the taxpayer dime, all so the company can keep the difference. Pretty disgusting.
Yes, I am indeed talking about Democratic Socialism.
As far as I can tell it is quite common for people to dislike the fact that they can't accumulate wealth. But why? Isn't it better if everyone can have a high life standard than just you being above the others?
Taxation will become absolutely redundant. There either won't be any money to tax or it will just be divided equally, which would make it pointless to tax.
(Except if you mean taking away money from the rich and giving it to everyone else. Some would consider this to be unfair, but if we managed to raise the "normal" living conditions to the level of how the rich people live now, with the modification that everyone would still have to work, the rich wouldn't be pulled down too much but they could be proud to help everyone else.)
Wait what? You find the idea of free education stupid? Are you serious? Education is what brought us so far to begin with. It will play a key role in our further progress. Free education would help everyone because the economy would be strengthened and scientific research would be sped up.
Krylos, I think You got the answer to Your question: everything and nothing
as You allready saw, socialism means whatever we what to mean.
So my answer is: if You wanna make better world, go for it. The only thing that matters is how You do it: as long you don't IMPOSE Your views, it's ok.
p.s. krylos would have deserved that our adulto-bitter-missogynistic fights take place elswere
but it's an idiotic argument, all know that Capitalism is slavery, but living with some money in the pokets and few cents in bank you feel like Bill Gates, and I cannot do nothing to change this reality.
So I've to wait for the next moronic and assassin Capitalistic war (very close, read the amount of NATO troops deployed from Balkans to Afghanistan and you'll understand what I mean, then read the amount of poor British, American, European dead in these last few years.....then sum your data and judge by yourself....), I'm speaking of a big, beautiful and deadly ****ing war......then our argument will find a more interested audience, I suppose,....in the end it worked quite well the last time we were able to use it so....why shouldn't it work again?
Abut imposing our ideas, no need to impose anything, I prefer to use verbs like.....consistently explaining,...stubbornly persuading,... intensely convincing, ...urgently insisting, and so on.......
Well if I'm rich, or just have extra income lying around, shouldn't it be my prerogative if I want to help people out? Why should I be forced to do it? The problem most people have with taxation is not "Oh I just want all the money to myself", no it is that they worked for it so they are entitled to it. I hate to be the one to say it, but in no sane world does it make sense for everyone to have the same wages. If they did then that means that you are telling a brain surgeon that his job is just as difficult and equal to a janitor.
@Diocle
Your belief that the troop deployments in the Balkans and Afghanistan will result in a "Captialistic War" is absolutely silly. This is not the world of the early 20th century. There are no longer wars like that because they are too costly. We can solve problems today much better than at the beginning of the 20th century. The losses from the wars the US has been in since 1990 have not even reached 10,000, unless you count wounded. 5,500 NATO troops are in the Balkans right now, and 102,000 (which will decrease alot next year) are in Afghanistan. Nothing adds up to what you predict to be a large conflict.
You think that war is beautiful? When you say things like that you sound like this guy
Last edited by Derpy Hooves; February 27, 2013 at 03:17 PM.
The thing is, nobody is entitled to everything they have only on account of having "worked for it" since everyone has what they do because of society as well as their own individual effort. A rich person may have inherited their money. Or they may have been born to a moderately wealthy family with lots of connections and with far more opportunities than anyone else and worked their way into a well paying job.
This isn't to say that nothing a person earns is through their work, just that none of it could've been done only on their own.
We don't live in a perfect meritocracy, where everybody gets exactly what the "deserve". We have lots of have and have nots that make it much easier/harder to earn lots of money. We do not have equality of opportunity, so there is no way that we can say a person "deserves" everything they have in our society. In fact, in the US, we have relatively low equitable opportunities, and our wealth distribution is shameful.
There shouldn't be a minimum wage... Who benefits from the minimum wage?
I've never worked for less than 75 cents above minimum wage even doing totally menial tasks. So the minimum wage may as well not exist. The higher you make the minimum wage the more everything will cost. It's not like you get more money. Your income is going to scale with your expenses.
All minimum wage does is keep some people unemployed. Not everyone is worth the minimum wage to hire, you pick someone else or you spread the job around to other employees, therefore they don't get hired, therefore instead of needing minor income supplements they need the full package.
People don't get paid at all for internships, oh yeah, because its an entry point. Just like minimum wage jobs. Obviously you need to provide some services to them, but don't give them a minimum wage and then we'll talk about it when they're working. Unless they're not able to work at all which is something different.If welfare pays more than the minimum wage, then that says something about the minimum wage, not welfare. If welfare is meant to keep people out of desperate poverty, then all that shows is that people can't live off the minimum wage alone and not live in poverty.
Have you ever considered that there is going to be a bottom quintile no matter how much people make unless it's all equal?The vast majority of people with minimum wage jobs have to have support, family, friends, etc., not to mention quite a few government services, to even stay above the poverty line.
You do realize that not only do companies AND their big wig bosses pay taxes, they also, and this is crucial, charge the tax payer (consumers) less because they pay people low costs.The government directly and indirectly subsidizes businesses that employ minimum wage work by keeping their employees fed, housed, and healthy on the taxpayer dime, all so the company can keep the difference. Pretty disgusting.
There's no way to solve this "problem," you'd figure that out if you actually thought about it.
Would you rather subsidize someone who makes as much as she really deserves at her job, or pay more for the same goods to give that person an unrealistically high welfare wage for what they're doing.
I'm going to hazard based on my common sense for these things that the higher prices vs higher taxes is going to impact the lower and middle classes more than the rich, so your theory is flawed.
Last edited by Col. Tartleton; February 27, 2013 at 06:06 PM.
The Earth is inhabited by billions of idiots.
The search for intelligent life continues...
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
Last edited by Col. Tartleton; February 28, 2013 at 03:54 AM.
The Earth is inhabited by billions of idiots.
The search for intelligent life continues...
But it's not just a question of $Xincome vs $Yincome. A single mother of 2 making 10$ an hour on a 40 hour week will exceed the actual dollar amount of income that she would get if she were on welfare. However, not being on welfare means she has to buy her own food, pay for her own baby sitter while she's at work, and pay her own utilities. She will have less disposable income and certainly less "free time" than if the state paid for her food, her baby sitters, her rent, her utilities, and provided her with a cash stipend.
That's the real situation. The state takes care of the cost of living. Since living beyond that standard isn't easy, why bother? If I were a minimum wage earner with 2 kids, I wouldn't even consider trying to find a job.
"Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Except it is an actual term.
What an incredibly loaded question. There are a lot of reasons for unemployment. What I think you are trying to get at is that lower wages would me no unemployment? Like, if we only have to pay workers a nickle everyone would hire workers...but then the workers would all die cause they can't live off a nickle a day. Minimum wage is already really difficult to get by on.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.