Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

Indie

As I’ve shown above time and again you seem to imply that the only way you can see of getting the unemployed to work is by putting them into forced labour, saying how many would then wish to remain on welfare rather than seek more gainful employment.

And I have already given you my reason why I’m not sure if this idea would be that beneficial to society or the individual. Criticisms you still have not addressed.

So for a few you would punish all? Why not try and find out who these few are and then find out why they are ‘freeloading’ and then tackle that problem?

Again you seem to be implying that the unemployed somehow like been ‘kept’ unemployed.

The vast majority of the unemployed are not lazy freeloaders they want to have work and are actively seeking work and seeking work as anyone whose been unemployed will tell you can be a job in itself.

But it seems to me that rather than trying to help people into work you want to hinder them, how can people seek work when you are forcing them to do something else, by forcing them to work in one place you are making it harder for them to relocate to get work and forcing them to do menial tasks isn’t helping them retrain for the jobs that are available.

As pointed out neoliberal/free market ideas are not about trying to achieve full employment as the Keynesian based models are, it is about having unemployment because that is one of the means of driving down wage prices. And these same neoliberal ideas promote outsourcing and the hollowing out of manufacturing jobs.

As I said above “There can be bad jobs but to me they should be the best rewarded I mean in my opinion a speculator is less important than a sewage worker”

I think street cleaners etc are very important and their wages should reflect that but you want to force people to do such work for low pay as a punishment because you seem to think they wouldn’t seek employment otherwise.

 

Indie

I’ll ask the same questions I’ve asked before and that you have ignored.

Are there no street cleaners, no sanitation department if not why not? Is no one repairing government housing, if not why not?

As to childcare, for me that should be a specialist profession, the education of children as I’ve discussed with you many times is very, very important. Kindergartens needs to be regulated, monitored and supervised (this happens in most countries). As a parent I’m not sure how happy I’d be handing my child over to someone who is untrained may have little aptitude for the job and is only doing it because they have been forced into it.

In my opinion what would be better for society would be employer paid work place crèches and subsidised or free kindergarten’s and pre-schools where, under the supervision of professionals, children could be given a good grounding and education.

But again I’d point out that this forced labour idea of yours would seem to be a gross manipulation of the concept you claim to hold dear that of the ‘free market’ – What you would be doing is flooding the market place with cheap labour subsidised by the state, which would have the effect of driving down all worker wage prices which would only favour the employers and their backers, so again you idea would seem only to favour the interests of the few rather than the majority.

 

Indie

Again that either/or good or bad mentality – local good, federal bad.

As I’ve pointed out above when you last brought it up why not elements of both, why not a balance?

Looking too locally can blind you to the bigger picture and looking too nationally can blind you to local problems. That is why both should play a part.

I mean we have been through this many times for example post 1662 in the Would you vote for Ron Paul thread.

We have been through this many times as well and as pointed out to you before localism is fine up to a point - but only up to a point, for example someone – say X – lives in a prosperous town with high employment, they might ‘evaluate’ their area and find little reason to give since there are few disadvantaged people. But only a few miles away their could be another town with high unemployment and with many people in hardship and little spare local money to go round but since X doesn’t live there, doesn’t go there and so cannot ‘evaluate’ that towns needs he doesn’t help to relieve they hardship.

If you have a national scheme with the duty, time, and knowledge to ‘evaluate’ things locally, regionally and nationally if can move resources to those places where it is most needed.

 

Bal,

So it's a discussion about ME? Yes, I have chosen to live where my means best suit my needs and wants. Prior to retiring, I also made decisions in the same way, moving to where I found the best employment opportunities, and living where my wages were most adequate to meet my needs and wants.

Back in the 60's I lived on a wage of $30 a week before taxes, and although quite inadequate I simply had to make adjustments in order to survive. The point being that while I accepted a job that I did not particularly like or enjoy, it was my own needs and wants that were the motivating force or cause, and I expended every possible effort in finding other employment more desirable.

What you put forth as criticisms, when addressed, only have the effect of prolonging, and expanding into areas other than the initial topic, becoming more of an attack on the person rather than an attempt to resolve a problem.

I had thought we were talking about poverty, which in my opinion is a result of both being unemployed and employed at an inadequate wage. The proper solution would be one in which both of those situations would be eliminated or at least greatly reduced. I find it to be a rather simplistic, and totally irrational to accept redistribution as the means of providing an acceptable solution that would benefit society as a whole.

You seem to feel that work is a punishment, while I simply view it as a necessity of life, and while some jobs may be quite enjoyable many others are not, yet they are in many cases some of the most necessary ones.

It makes no sense to pay someone 10 or more times what another or others are willing to do for much less. That's how a free market SHOULD work, and prices and the cost of living are kept from rising for everyone in their society. If you have a job you need to hire someone to do, and two equally competent persons are willing to do it with one asking 2-3 times as much to do the work. Which would you hire?

You seem to look at only what people are getting for free or paying in taxes in defining equality, while ignoring totally what they are producing or contributing to the society in which they live.

Although I don't recollect your asking such a question, yes, there are street cleaners and a sanitation department, and in some areas government housing is being repaired.

So the unemployed are untrained and cannot be trusted? When you use the terms like "few and majority", I presume you are using them as substitutes for "rich and poor", which seems to be a major issue for you. Yes, there are those who are very rich, does that make them bad in your eyes? And yes, there are those who are very poor, which seems to make them good in your eyes. I tend to look at each person individually and more often than not find that their wealth or lack of has little to do with what kind of a person they are.

You quote me as having typed "Local communities are where many of the problems that Centralized Federal government only make worse.", and then follow up with an incorrect and quite misleading definition of your own making stating "Again that either/or good or bad mentality – local good, federal bad."
Essentially what you are missing is the fact that while similar or even the same problems may exist in many places distant from one another, the best solutions can be quite different on a case by case basis, making their solutions one in which is arrived at locally rather than by a Centralized government. There are things which only the Central government is best suited to tending to, and even then the States (Senate) and the people (House of Representatives) combined carry out the decisions which have effect on the Nation and its inhabitants as a whole.

I think you would find that I have not claimed that everything should be decided at a local level, and that only the Federal level is capable of making decisions in some areas, had you read my post thoroughly.

Like I've pointed out before, if like in my own youth, when my home town did not provide employment opportunities, I simply moved to where employment opportunities existed, lived in a boarding house until I could save enough and earn enough to rent an apartment and began the slow process of earning a higher wage.

 

Indie

What an extremely long post that doesn’t seem to answer or address anything I raised.

*

It not about you but about what you say or seem to imply – you seemed to suggest that your retirement income that was a few thousand dollars higher than $15,080 but “about four thousand below what you claim to be the poverty level for a family of four which I am” which you paid taxes on was adequate to live on without actually pointing out that where you live the annual wage is around $2000-$2200 per year.

I asked you - Yes you may think that $15,080 is a great income and it would very much seem to be where you live but is it such a great income for the US?

*

No I don’t - but I do think forcing people to work for little benefit to themselves or society and only seemingly because you think if they are not so punished they’d refuse to find work is wrong headed and irrational.

*

Time and again I’ve explained to you that I want to help people to contribute to their society, and I’ve explained many times and at length why I think your ideas such as this forced labour scheme are a hindrance to that goal. Charges I’d add that you seem unable to address.

*

Again with the good or bad thing. It is not a matter or what kind of a person they are but what is best for society. We have discussed this many times it is a matter of goals.

My goal is to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential. A place that aims for full employment.
This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Your goals then seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable to me because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled, and the unemployed were punished for becoming unemployed even when it was through no fault of their own.

 

Indie

So again I’d say - If it is work that isn’t already being done, why isn't it being done? If it is being done (as you seem to indicate) then is it being done by people that had been doing it for a living who would now find themselves out of a job (where ironically they could be forced to do the same job as part of your forced labour scheme)?

AND AGAIN I’d point out that this force labour idea would seem to be a gross manipulation of the concept you claim to hold dear that of the ‘free market’ – What you would be doing is flooding the market place with cheap labour subsidised by the state, which would have the effect of driving down all worker wage prices which would only favour the employers and their backers, so again you idea would seem only to favour the interests of the few rather than the majority.

 

Bal,

And what an extremely long response of nonsensical questions, as usual.

You ask if $15,080 a great income in the U.S.? I would say that if your current income is $0, it would be a tremendous improvement. People have to start somewhere, and as I have found, you sometimes have to start over or suffer some undesirable losses along the way. You seem to think that government should be like an insurance policy in which it guarantees a standard of life to all, paid for primarily by those who do not need or want it, increasing their costs based only upon the costs of those who administer or benefit from it.

You then have no problem paying people for not working and seem to feel that is more beneficial to the society they live in?

Bal, you seem to feel that work should not be required unless and until someone can be provided a job which they would both enjoy and provide all their needs and wants, while I feel that work is a means of making one self valued to society and accepting giving additional benefits or assistance to those in need. I've yet to see you show where government has been given the responsibility of being the purveyor of individual needs or wants in a free society by the members of the society. Speaking of the U.S. as the U.K. is of no interest in what its society has accepted to me.

You have provided your opinion, which explains nothing more than how you would like government to be able to control the members of their societies. How do you find not working, but having you needs and wants provided by those who are working as contributing to the society?

Is it fair for those who work to provide for those who do not work? What about those who will not work? Or how about those who will but only if it results in a very much greater income than what they can receive without working? Or what about those who will work only until they earn the maximum that will not reduce their benefits provided by the government social programs? Is there no limit to how much and for how long you feel people are entitled to receive aid, 10 years, 20 years, a lifetime?

Does opportunity come knocking on your door?

How is ones potential recognized without it being demonstrated.

Should one expect to earn the top wage in any job immediately upon being hired?

How do you aim for full employment without motivating the unemployed to seek employment?

How do you aim for full employment while creating social programs which increase the quality of life of those not working above many of those who are working?

Just what do you base what is good for society on?

You should recognize as fact that I feel that your goals, while sounding good and playing well to the members of a society who feel their existence suffices in giving them a right to a share of their societies productivity, is not only irrational and unreasonable, but borders on being imbecilic, referring to your goals.

I had not specified any particular work that could be made available to those who are unemployed, but I'm certain that there could be many things which are not menial, but simply beyond budget constraints which could be found. It would seem more productive to try and identify what work could be available for the unemployed instead of arguing over helping them find employment. Personally, I can tell a great deal more of an individuals potential by seeing how they work as opposed to reading their résumé.

I didn't propose competing with existing employed workers, but filling jobs which there were no existing workers, and perhaps things which once done would no longer require attention. In fact I didn't even mention the private sector in providing jobs, but only the public sector which seems to frequently complain of under staffing, which could benefit society greatly by reducing the needs for budget increases by relieving the work load from permanent employees, essentially making use of those unemployed and receiving government benefits as temporary employees paying them with the same money they receive while not working, but not making them permanent employees, and perhaps making it easier for them to go to job interviews seeking permanent employment as the need arises.

Who are the few who you feel would benefit, and whose wages would be driven down?
There would be no competition with those already employed, and the private sector would not be involved.

A persons potential is of no value at all to him/her self or to their society if it is not put to use.

 

Thing is,back when all societies were agriculturally based or before that, hunter-gatherers,I'm going to assume ALL members had to contribute in ways that each were suited for or liked to do. I have a feeling that say 5,000 years ago,a lazy member of a then contemporary society would soon be run off or killed if some contribution was not made toward survival of the group. Now,with the way/s modern societies operate,particularly capitalist societies,there are not enough jobs/positions for the amount of people extant. A persons potential had no meaning pre-or ancient history. They just fit in and survived. Or not. Now potential is measured by what you are probably going to be able to have/acquire with some kind of vocation/scheme. The criteria for fitting in now is getting beyond what many if not most people can manage. In short,modern society has created the disconnect between merely surviving and surviving in societies that value the possesion of items and the fruits of the labor of others in some cases. Somewhere along the line of human progression modern societies changed and vitiated the potential to make life equitable,reasonable and enjoyable for all of humanity. It's getting worse. Now it's national and international corporate structures that will soon rule every aspect of our lives with so-called leaders complicit. How we've been convinced to join in the acquisition of so many "THINGS/OBJECTS in our lives has been brilliantly forced upon us and it appears we love it. The argument that everyone should just "get a job" is specious and frankly not possible. As I said (somewhere) all this welfare to those who cannot compete,is the pacification of those that have been and will be ignored for the foreseeable future.

Government will grow and government will shrink. "Leaders" will come and " leaders" will go. Back and forth and up and down. Meanwhile,"they" need us to buy more--buy more now. And remember to complain about lazy people,black people,bums,hippies,welfare queens--on and on. By god ,why can't people be more like me!!!!
It would be very,very bad if we did not keep giving the military-industrial complex our hard earned money.
Carry on.

 

Indie

I would wish that you’d read my posts rather than making things up, I don’t think work should not be required, I’ve said time and again that I want to get people into work (real work) and have pointed out the reason why this doesn’t seem to be your goal (criticisms you still refuse to address in any rational way).

As to people’s needs and wants again all I’ve argued for is that jobs should pay a decent living wage in other words a wage that doesn’t mean that people will still need assistance to survive. I don’t think the state should be subsidising low paying employers.

Can you actually explain in any rational way why you think all I’m trying to do is to have ‘government’ be able to control the members of their societies?

Again you seem to be implying that all the unemployed are lazy scroungers that want to be unemployed so they can freeload off others. I have explained that I want to get people into real work and have argued against the idea of forced labour, other than telling me I’m wrong you haven’t actually put up any rational or reasonable arguments.

Again you seem to be implying that all the unemployed are lazy scroungers that want to be unemployed so they can freeload off others.

As I’ve explained I want to get people into work and have pointed out the reasons why this doesn’t seem to be your goal (criticisms you still refuse to address in any rational way).

 

Indie

How can it be demonstrated if it is not nurtured and encouraged – we have been through this many times and I’ve explained why I think you ideas are more likely to stifle potential rather than encourage it criticism that you still refuse to address in any rational or reasonable way.

Of course not it to make such a statement is just a demonstration of how irrational your thinking is, rather than debating sensibly you just seem to lash out at those that you disagree with.

Again you seem to be implying that all the unemployed are lazy scroungers that want to be unemployed so they can freeload off others. Virtually all the unemployed want to work, even you have admitted that. Its not a matter of motivating them (forcing them) it is matter of having the conditions where work paying a decent wage is available.

And again you seem to be implying that all the unemployed are lazy scroungers that want to be unemployed so they can freeload off others. I want to raise the quality of life of everyone, there is always going to be some unemployment but my aim is to help people back into work, I’d also like people that are working to receive wages that mean they don’t need any assistance.

I agree but as I’ve shown you don’t seem to want to put it to use you seem to want to stifle it in many cases - I’ve asked you why many times but you seem unable to say.

 

Indie

My goal is to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential. A place that aims for full employment.
This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Your goals then seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable to me because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled, and the unemployed were punished for becoming unemployed even when it was through no fault of their own.

But you must realise that just telling me that my views are imbecilic isn’t a rational or reasonable counter argument? Also again you seem to be implying that most of the people in a society are lazy scroungers.

 

Indie

First you said - ‘doing public service community work’

After asking what you meant several time you eventually said - Are you implying that we should just allow trash to pile up in the streets as no one enjoys picking it up? How about jobs for the unemployed repairing government housing, or babysitting for those who could or would work but can't afford child care?

Refuse collection/cleaning – repairing government housing – childcare

I’ve given my criticisms of those things – but now we get

Still rather vague, I’d ask the same question I have before – if these things need doing why are they not being done? Wouldn’t it be better to remove the budget constraints and actually employ people to do the jobs rather than using forced labour? Why not get people that want to do the rather than people that are only there because they’re being forced to?

You would rather have people doing forced labour than having real jobs? Because that’s what it sounds like. Why would you not want to find them real work?

And how would an employer tell - are you saying that they all have to go along and see the forced labourers work before employing them? Of course not, most people are going to be employing on the strength of a resume.

But as I’ve said above –

OK someone, lets call X - through circumstance beyond their control losses their job and has to go on assistance for six months

Then they get a job interview –

Under your scheme – the employer would see that X had been forced to pick up litter for six months and knows that it was a forced labour scheme meaning the person has done little of worth in that time and might not even be a good worker.

Under an alternative scheme – the employer would see that X during a period of unemployment had volunteered for state sponsored training and had leant …(such and such)… something that would be useful to the employers business.

Which scheme do you think would be good for X, the employer and society in general?

I’d ask the same question I have before – if these things need doing why are they not being done?

Let us take the things you have specifically named - Refuse collection/cleaning – repairing government housing – childcare

Now you have said that there are street cleaners etc well then your forced labourers would be in competition with them. Same with those charged with repairing government buildings. As to childcare in the UK there are a number of private and public childcare groups and facilities manned by trained employees that your force labourers would be in direct competition with.

As to one off jobs they are often done by private outside contractors and again your forced labourers would be in direct competition.

Imagine a community with 50 full time cleaners, 50 full time government maintenance workers and 100 childcare professionals and 300 unemployed. Under your forced labour scheme 100 are assigned to cleaning and the 50 full time cleaners are sacked, 100 are assigned to maintenance and the full time workers are sacked, 100 are assigned to childcare and 50 childcare workers loose their jobs and the others have to cut their wages to complete.

Result you now have 425 unemployed and 25 needing assistance to survive after their wage were cut.

You then use 100 of those new forced labourers to do one off public works that used to be done by private outside contractors; several small firms lay off workers.

You know have 475 unemployed.

You then use the extra 100 forced labourers you have left to…now many of those unemployed will have clerical even admin experience so they can be forced to ‘help’ those sections of public service meaning, the more expensive staff can be laid off and once they are unemployed it might be possible to force them back into their old jobs but that the reduced wages.

You now have 550 unemployed and more forced labourers to find jobs for…

Basically the old better paid workers have a choice between been sacked or made unemployed and then forced to work for a low wage or try and compete with the cheap forced labourers by taking a pay cut.

Now you have more clerical workers looking for better than forced labour punishment and private employers see this and offer to pay them more than the forced labour wages but less than the clerical worker they are now employing the person agrees and the old cleric is sacked in favour of the cheaper one. The old cleric then has to compete with the new low wages for clerics or go into unemployed and the punishment of forced labour.

In this way wage prices are driven down. The employer is paying less and making more but the worker is less well off and may even need assistance to get by.

Now you might say that’s not how you envision it but that’s likely to be its course – a place was doing alright with 50 street cleaners it suddenly gets 150 (with possibly the new one hundred costing less than the 50) it doesn’t need 150, now some of the tax payers are going to say why do we need the old full time workers when we can just get the forced labourers to do it.

 

This is very true and is more than likely the reason why people who don't need assistance seek it out and stay on it. I'm talking specifically about the millions of people who make up a bullshit excuse to go on disability for pain pills. Of course they don't want to "better" themselves, that would mean giving up their drug addiction. My little brother was born mentally handicapped and was pronounced profoundly delayed at birth. My parents have struggled for years to pay the tremendously hight hospital bills and not to mention all the bills from the many specialists he's seen over the years. They have not once received help from the government, my Mom applied twice and gave up.

The way I look at it is if I have a house over my head, food to eat and running water, I'm doing a lot better than others out there in the world. I am thankful for what I have and appreciate everyday that I am alive and well.

 

Bal,

Wouldn't it be more accurate to state your goal as being one in which the government is given the responsibility and powers that would accomplish what you state to be your goals?

I just don't buy your premise that the disparity between the members of society in the U.S. is a result of unfairness or even lack of opportunity in the private sector. What is it you feel is unfair? Why do you feel opportunity is lacking? I've never found opportunities not to exist, but sometimes found it necessary to spend a little effort finding where they exist. If you base fairness on income then the answer is to find where your abilities are most valued and put them to use in that area.

You obviously are totally blind to what might be defined as MY goals, and by misconstruing in a supercilious way I too would find what you have presented as irrational and/or unreasonable if it was an accurate or honest representation of my goals.

Try arriving at facts rather than look for implications to argue over relentlessly and interminably. What you should focus on is the fact that being unemployed is a disadvantage for anyone who lacks the means to provide their needs and wants.

I've not implied that "most of people in a society are lazy scroungers", some may be.

How would you define Public Service Community work? Essentially what I was trying to put forth is some form of work which would benefit the community rather than some private sector business at taxpayer expense. The intent was to be vague, and obviously you are more intent on looking for something you can present in a negative light than to try and find anything positive in forming a response. Is it your position that government should provide for the unemployed until they can find a job which pays a middle income or higher wage, and that anything less is considered slavery?

Many things are likely left undone in every community due to lack of funds and lower priority in where funds are being spent. Perhaps some of the jobs would only require temporary employment and not provide permanent or even long term employment, and removing budget constraints only increases the debt problem. If you're already spending money supporting those who are unemployed, what is wrong with asking them to provide something in return? Most everyone who works for a living is 'forced' to work, which is simply the recognition of the fact that some form of income is required to provide their needs and wants. Sure, some may enjoy their jobs, but do you think everyone who works does so simply because they enjoy the job they have?

Real jobs should be the goal, but until one can be found there is nothing wrong with doing something, and that should be preferable to doing nothing from societies point of view.

There's no reason someone could not take advantage of State sponsored training and do some work at the same time. I went to college while working, and know many others who did the same or were required to in order to keep their jobs or receive promotion. And I'm not aware of much training that the State provides which would benefit most employers. Most large employers provide their own training specific to the jobs they provide and changes that require retraining of existing employees. I had accumulated over three pages of employer provided schooling over my working career.
I had people work for me with only high school educations, and others with college educations, and seldom found the higher education produced the better employee, in fact often the opposite was true.

You ask the same question over and over and fail to recognize the fact that it has been answered. Many things go undone simply because they are less important than the things which must be done, along with the budget constraints which even government sometimes claims as the reason for things it is unable to do.

Your scenarios are hardly worth the effort of responding to. Perhaps if government would allow the private sector to do what it does best without adding to the costs of employing people which enable government to create new and increase funding of social programs, it would enable more people to find jobs which provide a living wage without increasing government bureaucracy and public debt?

When wages are increased, the prices of the products and services as well as the future costs of the pensions and other benefits of those workers are increased. In addition, those same products and services may become available from abroad where they can be produced at a much lower cost, which gradually eliminates jobs that once provided employment at home. I have to admit that is progress, and spreading the wealth in the way it should be spread in a free market, however it benefits the poor in other countries to the detriment of the workers at home. Competition is great for the consumer, driving down the cost of living, but not so great for the worker when they demand wages and benefits which gives their competition an edge.

 

You present a case where government bureaucracy fails where assistance is needed and should be provided and could easily be provided simply by eliminating some of the waste and inefficiency in the complicated systems they create. I find it criminally reprehensible when government can produce estimates of the waste of tax revenues due to corruption and illegitimate claims in social programs, yet make little or no effort to eliminate or even reduce it.

I hope your parents will keep trying and seek assistance in getting the help they need for your little brother.

 

Good ideas having those on welfare and unemployment taking job training or internships and using learned skills to help others on welfare or collecting unemployment. When they find a job they move off aid and another takes their place. Its teaching them responsibility and good routines. I know how hard it is getting back into working or student mode after having laid out for awhile. Idleness is not good for a person or family.
Ive gotten aid from the state, Salvation Army, the mission, churches when I was a student or unemployed and broke. I've paid them all back 100X's since I've been working. Theres nothing wrong with getting help from society. We just should be of the mind set to pay it back when we start working again. Charity should be a circle of recieving when its needed and giving back when we can. Not a straight line of just recieving.
If you need help and cant get it from the govt. try Salvation Army, Urban League or United Way.

 

Wow! I know what your saying. Sometimes it sucks seeing the big picture. The shallowness of the 'American Dream' I know why some people drop out or live minumalist lives. Or go to the sticks and become self sufficiant. Its like we only have two paths. Drop out and live in poverty or join the rat race and all crap that goes with it. I pondered these things for many years and looked for a third path.

 

Is it not clear that Centralized government attempts to provide us with not two paths, but just a single path? A one size fits all approach, in which choices are fewer and the democratic process is one in which allows the governed to exercise but one choice freely, and that being "who" they will allow to make decisions based on the collective effect those decisions might have upon a single society. Freedom to drop out and live in poverty will be removed completely, replaced by only the more utopian choice of equality, like it or not, where all the governed will succeed or fail together.

Sounds really great, does it not?

 

You just said that being poor and starving is a freedom?

I have no problem with anyone who wants choosing to not play the game.

I do realize that right now, that's not possible. I'll say again, tax codes should fit in a booklet the size of a state driver's handbook, personal AND coorporate. There should not be personal mandates on health insurance or anything that would force people to do things they don't want like work...... there should be single payer, to give them the freedom to drop out if they really do have no desire for possessions, but still not forfit their health if they CHOOSE to go to a clinic.

The only choice I want removed is the choice to climb to wealth on the backs of others. Being equal or doing something exceptional to climb above that equality is just fine with me. But staging an exceptional corporate heist is not being exceptional in a way that is deserving of anything but prison.

So yeah...... you summed it up in that post, you think that rich people are rich because others use the freedom to drop out and live in poverty.

 

It most certainly can be. Freedom is quantified simply by the lack of prohibitions to choices we might make, not the results or consequences of those choices. Societies do limit some of the choices we might otherwise make in which we might do harm or limit the choices of others, and we sometimes become quite irrational and unreasonable in trying to find ways to place blame on others as the cause of our own shortcomings.

I don't equate life and living to be a game, but more of an effort in which the quality and length of are a result of both the effort and quality of decisions we each make.

The tax code is the primary tool used by politicians and government to acquire or retain power. I agree that health care should be 'single payer', except that the 'single payer' should be the person receiving health care.

A competitive free market, regulated only where absolutely necessary, allowing for success as well as failure to occur naturally, and wealth to be acquired based on the activity between producers and consumers suits me.

Not at all, rich people most often become rich by making good decisions, and providing something of value to the consumers. Instead of looking for a piece of the pie, they create more pies, with pies being the equivalent of wealth. After all, money today is no longer finite as is gold but simply paper on which numbers are printed and the perceived value of what exists is far greater than the sum total of the numbers printed on each of those pieces of paper. In 2008 there was less than $1 trillion in existence, and today there is nearly $3 trillion in existence, but still not enough to equate to the value of property or debt.

I don't see how a poor person dropping out and living in poverty makes anyone rich, but simply removes a consumer from the marketplace who are the ones who contribute to making others rich. If you don't like people getting rich by providing the things you need or want, don't purchase from them.