Democrats, Communists?

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
If they can't read, and the government provided for their education, who should you blame?

Their parents. My son could read before he attended public school.

And if their parents can't read?

Would make it more difficult, but I would still blame the parents if the child managed to make his/her way through public school without learning to read, regardless of whether the parents could read or not. The point being, I'm sick of hearing about parents blaming the schools for not properly educating their children, when they take no initiative, and do not make any efforts of education at home. If a child is not in an environment where they are expected or encouraged to learn, they probably won't, unless they are self-motivated in that regard.

0 Replies

Look. I certainly agree that every parent has the ulitimate responsibility for making sure their child is educated. I have no illusions about what the public schools will teach my child and know that I will have to suplement that education in order to meet the standards we have set for our family. However, I am also aware that as far as situations in life go, we are very fortunate. If I were to lose my husband or my job that would significantly affect my ability to care for and educate my children. Not to mention that the stress might make me not a nice person.

It's just not so simple and blaming people, be they parents or government, just isn't an effective solution.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

It's just not so simple and blaming people, be they parents or government, just isn't an effective solution.

You sure you're a liberal? Laughing

0 Replies

Well, I wasn't sure until I came around here. But enough people said I was so I figured they must know better than me. :wink:

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

It's just not so simple and blaming people, be they parents or government, just isn't an effective solution.

FreeDuck, it really isn't that simple. We had to join a lottery here for the San Francisco Unified School District and pick our 7 favorite schools in the order of our preference, and then sit back, sweat, and pray that our little daughter would get the best. Fortunately, she got our #2 choice, ten blocks from our house, and we've already met half the staff and several highly motivated and passionately dedicated volunteer parents.

But others didn't get any of their choices, and ended up at schools which don't perform quite as well. They will be forced to go through appeal processes, and will probably also consider moving.

In the end, it is much more up to the parents than ever before in making sure their child gets the best that is possible. But many parents are just not engaged in their child's development anymore, and rely on television and videos, without thought to visual impact and/or appropriateness.

0 Replies

Oh, you are not agreeing with me on an issue, Dookie ....are you?

Come now, not one mention of neocons in that post.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
If we had a flat tax, then wages would not be so disproportionate. You'd have to pay more to a hamburger flipper, 'cause he's still gonna want his take home pay. CEO would make less, 'cause the government would be taking less out of her wallet.

DD, do you really think that would happen?

After all, a hamburger flipper and a CEO are in a quite different position.

If a hamburger flipper couldn't make a living any more, wouldn't he just be told to stop complaining or find another McJob?

And if a CEO had left more money than he has now, would he really go "Aw, shucks, I really don't need that much. Actually, keep those additional millions , I have enough money already."

Don't get me wrong: a flat tax sounds just. And if circumstances for everybody would be the same, it would be just.

I'm not really advocating a flat tax. I'm just saying that one way or another, people are going to work for about the same take-home pay that they're getting now.

A CEO would have less money to spend on her own salary, because she will have to raise the salaries of all of her employees to make up for the bigger slice the government is taking.

0 Replies

We don't have specific names Jazzfreak, just the year that the class is in and we count from the first year at school. So a Year 1 student is 5 years of age. Here you would be called a Year 10 student. In recent years the graduating class (Year 12) have been called "Senior" so no doubt it won't be long before we adopt your naming system.

0 Replies

Quote:

I would say in the case you mention that neither burger flipper is wealthy and that there is no amount of waking hours a burger flipper could work that would make him so. And no, I haven't failed to consider ingenuity and invention because folks who strike it rich with such are the exception and not the rule.

OK, just a little definition confusion. Neither burger flipper is likely to have an abundance of wealth(become wealthy) by flipping burgers, however, one burger flipper will have 66% more wealth than the other, thus the correlation between hard work and wealth.

Dependant upon how that additional wealth is used, the burger flipper could conceivably become wealthy, but its hard work juggling 50 hours at work and 12 hours at school.

Quote:

How so?

The top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of the tax burden.

Source

[/QUOTE]A flat tax is regressive in that it harms those on the lower end of the pay scale more than those on the upper. Its only purpose is to punish people for not being wealthy.

Quote:

No, a flat tax would basically wipe out all the tax shelters, loop holes, and deductions that the wealthy hide their money in. Half of personal income is not currently taxed because of thses loopholes. If I understand it correctly, households earning less than 22K would be exempt. A flat tax is not meant to punish anybody, only to be fair. Here is what has been proposed

Quote:
I was thinking specifically of the industrial age here in the US and folks like Jay Gould specifically. But I could give examples throughout history and from different countries. Slavery was a great crime that made many a plantation owner rich. I could probably make the argument about contemporary fortunes made off of Enron and Worldcom and others, but that's not really my point. My point is that implying that people are in the positions they are in solely on the basis of merit is demonstrably false -- and that goes for both the rich and the poor. Then there is the majority of us, those of us in the middle that are carrying the weight of both other sectors.

I agree with most of what you said above, just not what you said originally said:

"Behind every great fortune is a great crime"

This quote is attributed to Honore de Balzac in one of his novels, but it has been distorted, the original is "The secret of great wealth with no obvious source is some forgotten crime, forgotten because it was done neatly"

Quote:
Hmmm. I don't know the Theory of Human Equality -- seems you know more about that than I do -- so I'm not sure what the clever trick is. What I do know is that we are all affected by our neighbors. I don't believe that everyone has to be, or even can be, equal. But I do believe that if we neglect whole segments of the population, tell ourselves they are poor because they want to be poor or are too lazy to work, that will not make the problem go away. You can't just flush them down the toilet. We have to make sure that everyone has a minimum standard of living if we want to protect our own private property. There is, indeed there has to be, a balance between "damn the poor" and "screw the rich".

The problem will never go away. There are myriad entitlement/welfare programs already in place but they dont seem to be having much effect. Will more money solve this problem, or promote it? Subsidizing something tends to increase it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "minimum standard of living" Food, water and shelter? As for protecting private property, I thought that was what laws, cops and guns were for.

Quote:
Hmmm. Methinks maybe you're responding to an imaginary communist rather than my post, which was intended to be thought provoking and not an argument for progressive taxation or against private property. Nevertheless, good to at least have some opinions.

Maybe. I just dont like the fear tactics ie "your kid beaten, your house robbed, your car stolen"

Also, Im not sure what to make of this "None of us lives in a vacuum where what's ours is ours and no-one elses" Last time I checked, whats mine is mine and no one elses. Do you mean to say that property can be stolen or seized by the government?

0 Replies

double post

0 Replies

Go Instigate. Couldn't have said it better.

All this talk of Burgers is making me hungry.

I reply on some stuff tonight.

0 Replies

Instigate wrote:

The top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of the tax burden.

How much do the top 5% earn, in relation to the rest of the population?

0 Replies

Instigate wrote:

OK, just a little definition confusion. Neither burger flipper is likely to have an abundance of wealth(become wealthy) by flipping burgers, however, one burger flipper will have 66% more wealth than the other, thus the correlation between hard work and wealth.

66% of what? That could be 66 cents, $6.60 or $600. None of those are significant in the context of today's cost of living. The harder worker might have more earnings, but neither is wealthy. My original postulate is that there is no direct correlation between hard work and wealth -- ie being wealthy. For example, stay at home moms work harder than anyone and make absolutely nothing for their efforts.

Quote:

Quote:
How so?

The top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of the tax burden.

Source

...

No, a flat tax would basically wipe out all the tax shelters, loop holes, and deductions that the wealthy hide their money in. Half of personal income is not currently taxed because of thses loopholes. If I understand it correctly, households earning less than 22K would be exempt. A flat tax is not meant to punish anybody, only to be fair. Here is what has been proposed

Ok, so if the upper earners are already shouldering most of the burden, why do we need to eliminate loopholes? Wouldn't they then have to pay more?

I'm actually ok with a flat tax as long as it is relatively low (to allow the middle class to breath) and as long as it doesn't kick in until after a certain level of earnings.

Quote:

Quote:
I was thinking specifically of the industrial age here in the US and folks like Jay Gould specifically. But I could give examples throughout history and from different countries. Slavery was a great crime that made many a plantation owner rich. I could probably make the argument about contemporary fortunes made off of Enron and Worldcom and others, but that's not really my point. My point is that implying that people are in the positions they are in solely on the basis of merit is demonstrably false -- and that goes for both the rich and the poor. Then there is the majority of us, those of us in the middle that are carrying the weight of both other sectors.

I agree with most of what you said above, just not what you said originally said:

"Behind every great fortune is a great crime"

Actually, what I originally said was:

FreeDuck wrote:

I'm going to show my pinko colors and quote someone I can't remember who said "Behind every great fortune is a great crime." That may or may not be true right now, but there was a time when it was probably the rule.

Which is pretty much the same thing I said above, but with examples.

Quote:

As for protecting private property, I thought that was what laws, cops and guns were for.

No, those are what allows us to punish folks after they've violated us or our property.

Quote:

Maybe. I just dont like the fear tactics ie "your kid beaten, your house robbed, your car stolen"

That wasn't intended to be a fear tactic but an illustration of how other people's poverty does affect us, whether we would like it to or not. It was a direct response to the "I don't care about poor people" statement.

Quote:

Also, Im not sure what to make of this "None of us lives in a vacuum where what's ours is ours and no-one elses" Last time I checked, whats mine is mine and no one elses. Do you mean to say that property can be stolen or seized by the government?

No, that's quite a leap. I mean to say that we have things that are ours, but we share most things that are important with those who share this planet with us. Like the air we breath, the water we drink, the roads we drive on, the schools we attend, the sidewalks and public transportation, etc etc. We don't live in a vacuum and we can't prevent other people from affecting our lives.

I will say again, there is and has to be a balance between "screw the poor" and "damn the rich".

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Instigate wrote:
OK, just a little definition confusion. Neither burger flipper is likely to have an abundance of wealth(become wealthy) by flipping burgers, however, one burger flipper will have 66% more wealth than the other, thus the correlation between hard work and wealth.

66% of what? That could be 66 cents, $6.60 or $600. None of those are significant in the context of today's cost of living. The harder worker might have more earnings, but neither is wealthy. My original postulate is that there is no direct correlation between hard work and wealth -- ie being wealthy. For example, stay at home moms work harder than anyone and make absolutely nothing for their efforts.

Guess we need to define terms. Such as wealth.

IMO, the ability to stay home with your kid is weath beyond riches.

0 Replies

I agree with dad. The "wealth" a stay at home mom gets is far greater than that of a renowned plastic surgeon.

Some rich people though, do have a correlation between hard work and their wealth. At least at one point. If they all sat on their asses their whole life they would be living out of a carboardbox in New York. Im not saying all people are like this, but do you think that Bill Gates was a lazy bum, no, he worked hard and revolutionized one of the greatest electronic devices we have today. If he just sat around with his thumb up his butt he most likely would not be rich. Im sorry if Im being rude im just trying to prove a point. I get a little worked up sometimes.

0 Replies

Bill Gates - well let's not analyse what he did too closely but accept the idea that an individual, if they have a really good idea, some seed capital and are prepared to work very hard to pursue their idea, can become wealthy. Okay, let's say it happens. Good for them, they're entitled to it.

What about where someone inherits massive wealth Jazzfreak? Is it deserved? Are they a worthy person simply because they had the good sense to choose wealthy parents?

And someone who is born into poverty and inherits nothing. Are they unworthy simply because of the accident of birth?

If the ability to stay at home with your kid is wealth beyond riches then what does it mean for a woman who has to go out to work to look after her kid? Does that mean she's greedy?

0 Replies

I would say that Bill Gates had good ideas and a little capital. I wouldn't say that he necessarily worked his arse off. My point in saying there is no corelation between wealth and hard work is to show that hard work is not enough. Bill Gates made a mint off a good idea and a good opportunity, not off of hours of soddering motherboards. So to say that folks who are poor just don't work hard enough is incorrect, as most poor work very hard. They just don't have the other things it takes to become wealthy. My grandmother used to say "if you're willing to work hard, somebody'll letcha". Words to live by, IMO.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

If the ability to stay at home with your kid is wealth beyond riches then what does it mean for a woman who has to go out to work to look after her kid? Does that mean she's greedy?

Not at all. The primary responsibility of a parent is to make sure a child has basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing.

I'm just saying that "wealth" means different things to different people. If one only defines "wealth" as monetary assets, then so be it. But IMO one can be "wealthy" even if one does not have large amounts of money.

0 Replies

That's true, DrewDad, and possibly the reason why most people don't pursue massive riches is because they'd rather have that sort of wealth. It's just that, when discussing whether there needs to be some balance between socialist and capitalist policies, we tend to think in terms of dollars.

0 Replies

I know; I just tend towards the pedantic on occasion.

0 Replies

Democrats, Communists?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know