Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“The rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That’s unacceptable.”
Ok, here...see, this is the problem. These morons think it's the government's job to protect and provide for the poor. WRONG. It's all our jobs to work within our community to provide. Turn the job over to the government and all you get is inefficient, botched up garbage that turns people into entitled, multigenerational welfare families.
Yep, that one quote pretty much sums up the mindset of liberals; they see governmet as the solution to all problems, while free citizens are an obstacle.
In fact, it wouldn't matter how much money the government acquired from the likes of Buffet or Gates. It would simply be swallowed up into the giant black hole of government corruption and inefficiency, producing little to no material effect in the real world.
The only purpose of our government is
1) To protect the nation
2) Control the citizens.
The Constitution was designed to limit that control.. Try reading it..
I am not talking about the US government in particular, but about any government. Government is like management in the corporate world. The bigger the organization gets, the better management needs to be since humans are not selfless ants, but rather egoist creatures with myriad and opposing views. Take 300m of them and you get anarchy where everyone is just trying to get as big a piece of the pie as possible. Ideally humans would govern themselves, but that is not always the case. It may work on a local level, especially if people still know each other individually so that more subtle forms of pressure prevail.
I am not talking about the US government in particular, but about any government. Government is like management in the corporate world. The bigger the organization gets, the better management needs to be since humans are not selfless ants, but rather egoist creatures with myriad and opposing views. Take 300m of them and you get anarchy where everyone is just trying to get as big a piece of the pie as possible. Ideally humans would govern themselves, but that is not always the case. It may work on a local level, especially if people still know each other individually so that more subtle forms of pressure prevail.
NO, IT IS NOT!
Management in the corporate world is answerable to free market forces which compell managers to make the most rational and efficient decisions possible. If the corporation goes out of business, so does management.
Governement is under no such constraint. And in fact it can be argued that government opperates under opposite forces - the more inefficient and irrational, the larger the bureaucracy that is required and hence more power is acquired. There is no threat of going out of business, or no incentive to produce products that the free market demands.
The only thing produced by government is more government.
Most wealth has nothing to do with hard work, talent or risk taking. Wealth has a lot to do with inheritance, social position and private education.
We've had this discussion on C-D. According to Forbes Magazine, 274 (68.5%), the vast majority of the top wealthiest 400, are self-made. Secrets Of The Self-Made 2009 - Forbes.com
@moose
In politics the main pressure is reelection. And both politicians and managers screw up without thinking of the failing organizations they are responsible for.
I don't know about the US, but from the countries I know I got the impression that local governments by and large do a pretty good job.
Furthermore I think that even national governments usually don't screw up because they want bureaucracy or whatever we always accuse them of, but instead they mostly really want to improve things, even if their ideas and means are sometimes ill-fated. But that says more about the qualifications of those people, rather than their intentions.
I think they are well aware of what the dangers of taking money from the rich are. They have alot of experience with all their dealings with George Soros. The rich man who literally takes control of small countries because he helped them with money while they were down.
Why are these rich American men trying to give to foreign countries and not donate to American tent cities? IMO is because there are stipulations to the money. Gates is getting well known for his dangerous vaccines he spreading around the world. We may be blind to it but it is happening.
The story linked in the OP provides a German perspective. A while ago, a group of rich Germans told its government, via a petition, that it would be okay to raise taxes on them, towards the welfare of the nation. These folks already contribute to philanthropic causes, but clearly want to contribute more through the government. I am sure these are smart people who trust their government.
The issue they see with the pledge from American rich is that there isn't an effort for ongoing contribution (example, higher taxes), but a write off when they no longer need the wealth for themselves (even that could be applied against taxes).
Just a case of two developed societies and their perspective on how the rich can work for the welfare of the nation.
“The rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That’s unacceptable.”
Ok, here...see, this is the problem. These morons think it's the government's job to protect and provide for the poor. WRONG. It's all our jobs to work within our community to provide. Turn the job over to the government and all you get is inefficient, botched up garbage that turns people into entitled, multigenerational welfare families.
WOW ! ! ! I was just sitting here, having a sandwich, reading... saw that bold underlined part and nearly popped my neck in reaction.
....The donors are taking place of the state...
Uhhhh, in the U.S., it's the state that is taking place of the donors. The donors being the original general welfare, now supplanted by self satisfying interpretations of the Constitution.
A donor can give to a philanthropy which can in turn grow the funds thru investments, providing continuous care for those in need.
You give some cash to the government and it will use whatever funds are leftover after Congress rewards itself. Once gone, just raise taxes.
I could NOT care less what a Euro person thinks of how the U.S. deals with caring for the needy. Let them protect themselves for about a hundred years without starting a war, then they'll have some moral ground on which to judge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Socialist Perspective
