Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by aapo, Jun 3, 2009.
Darn you for injecting logic into this conversation!
How so? 10char
So it's either be rich and live with paying higher taxes for less benefit as compared to those who are less wealthy and pay less for more or give up your wealth so you don't have to pay as much in higher taxes yet receive more bang for your buck than you would had you been rich? That's a false dichotomy if I ever did hear one. What about being rich and not being forced to pay out a greater portion of your income which is going to benefit someone else more than what it benefits you?
You didn't really solve any problem, you know.
Wait. So because I don't like forced charity, which really isn't charity at all, but theft, then I lack a basic sense of morality?
I don't know where you live, but in the U.S. there are all sorts of grants and scholarships for "underprivileged" persons, assuming they made the grades and test scores while in high school.
Because they are overwhelmingly more likely to own valuable property and buildings, and are thus overwhelmingly more likely to lose extremely valuable things from property seizure, theft, disruption of trade, destruction of factories, vandalism, etc.
Whereas about the only valuable thing a poor person is likely to lose in war is his life (which rich people can still lose)
What allows a person to be rich? A stable society that is not going to be invaded by another nation? A government that can be relied on to enforce laws, contracts, arrest thieves and extortioners? Roads to move your products? A mail system? Educated workers? Customers sufficiently secure for consumer spending?
Everything government does builds the opportunity for people to build a business and make a fortune.
Let's go with, say, WWII. Assume the British government and military didn't exist, so the Germans could bomb all of England freely. A rich person owning a large mansion and estate having it destroyed loses much more than a poor person living in an apartment if it's destroyed. Therefore the rich have more to lose than the poor from war, crime, etc...
Given that we originally started with discussing that taxes are used to pay for more healthcare than you think they should, I decided to leave subsidized tertiary learning out of the picture, since that's also a service the government provides in amounts exceeding less-capable agencies.
Not everyone who is accepted gets a scholarship/grant.
That seems to be an awful amount of excuses to me. How would I expect them to do it? The same way immigrants come to the U.S. with nothing (Less than nothing, sometimes) besides their families and seem to find a way to get their children through school, and sometimes themselves, as well. It's not nearly as hard as some people make it out to be. And I say this only because my parents came to this country when I was, like, three and put themselves through school on their own (My dad's an electrical engineer and my mom a claim's adjuster) while we were living in a two-bedroom "apartment" (Really, it was a shack).
As far as college goes, there are many, many, many options out there nowadays including academic/atheletic scholarships, grants aimed at low-income households (i.e., the Pell Grant) and, if you have to, loans. Unless they're short term, most loans don't come due until six months after you graduate and if the economy doesn't perk up by the time you graduate you could always go back to school to get an MBA/PhD/etc. I don't really have much sympathy for people who don't even try to better themselves.
And even if the economy is bad at the moment, a college degree and working at McDonald's if you have to will get you more than a high school degree and working at McDonald's if and when the economy does begin to recover.
I think most people would be more concerned with their lives than with their possessions/property.
Not everyone receives equal starting position, so your argument collapses in on itself.
Ironically, it was the free market which nearly caused societal collapse. The entire reason we're in a hole right now is because banks were essentially lying. Why were they lying? To show a greater profit and reap the rewards. Free market: where profit is everything.
No, if a person does not pay to use a product, then they do not receive that product. Regardless of whether it's healthcare, protection, the legal system, and so on. That's where the government steps in.
That's because it is true. It's a form of enslavement. Let's say I'm in a hole right now. A company comes around and offers me a job. Do I have the choice to turn them down? No. I have to work for them, whether I like it or not. They will subsequently pay me low wages, and I will barely be able to scrape by, much less actually advance somehow.
And before you say that I have a choice to turn them down... it's as much of a choice as "I have a choice to shoot myself" when I'm holding a gun, as opposed to not shoot myself. No, it's not a choice.
Cellphone usage is not a basic necessity of life. A person does not die if they are without a cellphone, they do die if they are without healthcare. Try to form coherent and logical arguments please.
Beautiful thing about this system is that the post-secondary education system is also free-market. Can't afford it? Too bad.
If we're going to make ridiculous statements like that, then you lack a basic sense of morality because you support enslavement.
Not enough. The point of social and economic reform is that a person, no matter what level they're born in, have the same opportunities. It is not right that a smart person that is born into a poor family and isn't smart enough to get these scholarships not get into the schools, when they would be able to and pass through the school no problem had they been born into wealth. All levels of education should be socialized.
Europe is the critical mass of this world, deriving the world into a new potential depression, and everybody is shooting each other on the streets. Also, individuals aren't respected.
So much meaning in the two lines above, but it's mostly ironical and some of my opinions mixed into it, most of you will probably miss it, but my first and only ACTUAL answer to this thread is:
Go out more. They're called Europeans.
Point 1: Capitalism is separating people by income groups too. Just the other way.
Point 2: Saving people's jobs: dictatorship?
Point 3: It's not that they know better, it's that they can make it so that it doesn't favor the rich and oppress the poor.
Point 4: ? strawman....
My point: this thread is a troll.
Another: The Internet forums, especially video game ones, are full of smart, tech-savvy people. These people are often leftist.
I never said that taxes paying for health care is bad. I said that universal health care in which those considered upper class receive much less benefit than those who are deemed lower class even though they will end up paying more into it is bad. As I said in my first post, everyone should receive *some* level of health care, but only the basic amount. Beyond that, if you want better health care then it should come out of your own pocket. It's the same concept with education.
And, yes, not everyone who is accepted gets a scholarship or grant but you seriously have to try to get nothing at all.
Of course, the defintion of dictatorship is not winning the election...
So a public/private mix? ...that's what most universal healthcare systems do.
So the solution to avoiding needing subsidized health care is to get a subsidized education? The world needs healthy ditch diggers so the engineer can have his designs implemented.
I know. Everyone is afforded a basic level of education but, beyond that, if you want it, you have to pay for it. I like this system, because it generally rewards those who put in the extra effort for a post-secondary degree of some sort.
Except for the fact that I'm not dooming anyone to forever be poor or indebted to someone else, I doubt it.
To make use of some popular cliches, "Life isn't fair" and "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade". Anyone who truly wants to go to college will go to college. It's really that simple. Some will have to work harder at it than others, but that's life.
Anywho, if all levels of education become socialized, then having any specific degree becomes meaningless because everyone else will have it as well. Think of it this way: Having a high school diploma doesn't mean squat, because at least 250M+ other people in the U.S. has one. And if everyone has the same qualifications as you and there are millions of people vying for the same job then that job isn't going to pay as well as it would if it were only offered to those with advanced degrees. I can't remember what country it is, but some southeast Asian country has a high percentage of persons hold a post-graduate degree and, as a result, the jobs which would typically pay out a decent amount to people who hold those degrees pay out very little.
The rich pay out of pocket and still have plenty left.
You argued the bare minimum amount of $5/month, which isn't enough for anyone. Unless you seriously believe that's a realistic figure, then you're arguing against government funding of health care.
$5/month keeps the workforce at home.
If you're not a professional-bound athlete or a straight-A student, the bulk of tuition is not paid via scholarships/grants. Loans are non-starters for the poor.
Your point being that you don't care about a guy losing his leg because he can survive if treated properly, but he has no right to get a fake replacement since his job as a truck driver doesn't pay enough, and his birth into a poor family left him without the economical possibilities to get a proper education. I agree so much, yes Poor people are lazy anyways, especially in semi-socialized economies where they get economical support when not working. You shouldn't just *hand* them the cash rightfully earned by the rich people who don't spend all of all of their money on necessities anyways, they have to have that extra lump of gold for themselves if their firm bankrupted so they could support themselves. Also, progressive taxes are idiotic, since a flat tax would bring in much less income to the state. The state is evil communist anyways, the bureaucracy is too hindering for money to be properly allocated.
Actually, your post shed me in tears. Let me hug you.
Having a high school diploma means "squat" because high paying jobs today require an advanced education because we are now a service economy, not because 250 million people have it.
And no, having specific degrees arn't meaningless. The only thing levels of education being "socialized" does is remove the monetary component from the equation.
Separate names with a comma.